"This Court's authority, however, extends only to determining whether the City's proposed condemnations are for a "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution."
That kind of sums up why I'm not a fan of
Kelo: I would have liked for SCOTUS to have been 'activist judges' and made an ethos-driven "it's just not right!" decision condemning the type of private-to-public-to-private taking proposed in New London. In other words, using the same kind of reasoning that helped Kennedy determine that there was a fundamental right to dignity and respect for sexual privacy within the sanctity of the home in
Lawrence.
(
Lawrence being, like, my favorite case in years. It was just the right decision to make, damn it!)
For me, the idea of the home as sacred is, well, sacred. A white picket fence draws the line between The Man and me. Within the walls of my home I'm free to get my freak on, read 'dangerous' books, pick my nose, throw darts at pictures of the president, walk around naked, etc. To allow the state to wrest that from me for the financial benefit of another private party (even if the action will ultimately provide some community benefits) is an outrage. The state needs to build a highway through my living room? I can accept that. The state needs to take my living room so that they can turn it over to some asshat developer who is going to put in a Starbucks and some condos? Hell to the no!
* Bear in mind, of course, that ms_ann_thrope is a B- scholar of Constitutional Law. 