发信人: billionare (Go McCain!!!), 信区: USANews
标 题: Re: 开始旗帜鲜明的支持马凯
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Mar 27 17:56:31 2008)
In my opinion, the decision on the Hawaii case was wrong and the subsequent
decision on the Kelo case was even wrongER.
When you read those two cases carefully, you would find that the situations
in both cases are actually different.
In the Hawaii case, those land owners owned 47% of the whole island. The
government can argue that the government was unable to compensate "enough"
the land owners as there was a situation of monopoly and the owners was
seeking unreasonable compensation, which I do not agree. Therefore, the
decision was based on "..that the takings to correct concentrated property
ownership was a legitimate public purpose."(from Wiki)
In the Kelo case, the home owner owned just a small piece of property. It
was not a concentrated property ownership at all. I would say without the
bad decision of the Hawaii case, there would have not been the even worse
Kelo decision at all.
IMHO, the justices in the Hawaii case were the ones committed judicial
Sadly, people can be unanimously WRONG.
【 在 LeoJackie (西红柿炒鸡蛋) 的大作中提到: 】
: But the Kelo case merely reaffirmed the 1984 Hawaii decision and decisions
: before that. The Hawaii decision was unanimous, which means Justices
: , Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun and Stevens joined the opinion.
: , O'Connor joined the Hawaii opinion, but dissented in the Kelo case.
: Anyways, you can't say that the Kelo majority betrayed the liberal ideal.
: In fact, it was the dissenting justices in the Kelo case that committed
: judicial activism because they put their conservative ideal about private
: property rights over judicial consistency.
※ 来源:·WWW 未名空间站 海外: mitbbs.com 中国: mitbbs.cn·[FROM: 128.208.]