"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 18 May 2008 13:04:01 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 18 May 2008 10:40:04 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

snip
FWIW -- the average age of the current US supreme court is now
68, which helps explain why SCOTUS cannot seem to relate to the
problems and concerns of the people in the current times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme..._United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...d_St ates#Age
snip
---------------
I just got an interesting email from a reader *NOT* in the United
States pointing out another possible reason for SCOTUS
indifference to the concerns and problems of the majority of
citizens.

George, what particular decisions do you feel reflect "indifference
to the concerns and problems of the majority of citizens"?
==========
I would start with the "imminent domain" cases where the local
pols seize private property to be transferred to private
individuals and companies on the grounds this will "revitalize"
an urban area or improve local tax revenues.

You're talking about the Kelo case. I'm sure you realize that the
courts in America deferred to local governments on matters of eminent
domain even before the country's founding. These cases are matters of
state or local governments making the initial claim of domain, which
was never successfully challenged for the first century or so in the
country's history, and the Supreme Court is deferring to them, once
again.

It's a very originalist interpretation and it has a long and generally
favorable history. If you look at the cases that applied the "public
purpose" rule, such as Berman v Parker (1954), you'll see that the
Court said that the purpose had to be "public" and then decided that a
construction project that would clear "blighted areas" fit that
definition. And that was a very liberal, activist Court. One wonders
what they would have decided if the area had not been blighted. I
doubt if even the 1954 Court would have told the state (or D.C., in
the Berman case) how to define "blight." In 1981, the Michigan
Supreme Court decided that Detroit or Dearborn (I forget which) could
clear an area of "blighted" homes to build a new GM plant.

It was Hamtramck Ed.

Obviously a blighted place. My first college roommate, Bohdan Huzar, was
from Hamtramck. He arrived on a soccer scholarship but then they learned he
had played semi-pro ball in Hamtramck for $25/game, and they kicked him out
of the NCAA. They deserved to have the town flattened for stupidity. g

--
Ed Huntress