Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Evan Zimmerman <evan.zimmerman AT gmail.com>]

That was what I expected they would do -- which is why I was surprised
when the implication was otherwise. I clearly misheard the news report
:-)

"Greater good" vs. "the individual's rights". Good discussion to be had I'm sure. 


Evan

On 6/24/05, K. Jo Garner <kelly AT metalab.unc.edu> wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Evan Zimmerman wrote:
->I was also intrigued by this, in part because the impression I got was that
->some of the more conservative justices supported the decision, which seems
->surprising (to me anyway). Does anyone know which way Scalia, Thomas and
->Renhquist went?


Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases
before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should
not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided
compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a
taking only if it eliminates blight.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party,
but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote.
"The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate
influence and power in the political process, including large corporations
and development firms."

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as
well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html

cheers
KJ

-- 
Evan

_________________________
evan.zimmerman AT gmail.com