Shameful: Pfizer abandons site of infamous Kelo eminent domain taking

The Washington Examiner reports, Pfizer abandons site of infamous Kelo eminent domain taking (H/T Professor K. on FB)

The private homes that New London, Conn., took away from Suzette Kelo and her neighbors have been torn down. Their former site is a wasteland of fields of weeds, a monument to the power of eminent domain.

But now Pfizer, the drug company whose neighboring research facility had been the original cause of the homes’ seizure, has just announced that it is closing up shop in New London.

To lure those jobs to New London a decade ago, the local government promised to demolish the older residential neighborhood adjacent to the land Pfizer was buying for next-to-nothing. Suzette Kelo fought the taking to the Supreme Court, and lost. Five justices found this redevelopment met the constitutional hurdle of “public use.”

Pfizer Inc. will shut down its massive New London research and development headquarters and transfer most of the 1,400 people working there to Groton, the pharmaceutical giant said Monday….

Pfizer is now deciding what to do with its giant New London offices, and will consider selling it, leasing it and other options, a company spokeswoman said.

This tragedy of property rights reveals the pitfalls of eminent domain takings for private development. Suzette Kelo’s home was taken by eminent domain. Years later, Pfizer abandoned the property, but Kelo’s little pink house was no longer (thought it was moved across town).

Scott Bullock, put it succinctly “This shows the folly of these redevelopment projects that use massive taxpayer subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare and abuse eminent domain.”

For shame.

Update: Thanks for the Hat Tip Professor Somin.

Compare Two Presidents Giving Addresses in Berlin

Who is the most insignificant Justice according to Chief Justice Roberts?

None other than Justice Gabriel Duvall, of course.

From Wikipedia:

In the twenty-three years he sat on the Supreme Court, Duvall penned an opinion in only seventeen cases. For all of Duvall’s tenure, John Marshall presided as Chief Justice. In only two cases, does the record show the two men holding different opinions. In Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheaton) 518 (1819), Duvall offered only a brief note calling attention to French law on the irrevocability of royal charters. In Mima Queen v. Hepburn, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 290 (1834), Duvall would have authorized the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia to accept hearsay evidence proving the emancipation of a slave by her owner, but the rest of the Court, per the Chief Justice, decided against it.

H/T Moin Y. on FB.

Really Cool Video: High Speed Camera Films A Water Drop, and it Bounces Up

Check this video out. It is really, really cool. H/T Gizmodo.

Who Is a Jew? And is Judaism/Jewish a Religion, Race, or Ethnicity? Court Ruling in Britain Raises Question

From the New York Times, Who Is a Jew? Court Ruling in Britain Raises Question (H/T Instapundit). A student applied to an Orthodox Jewish school in the UK, and the School found that he wasn’t Jewish, and would not admit him. While the boys mother converted in a Progressive Synagogue, because she did not convert in a Orthodox synagogue, the school did not consider the boy Jewish.

The questions before the judges in Courtroom No. 1 ofBritain’s Supreme Court were as ancient and as complex as Judaism itself.

Who is a Jew? And who gets to decide?

On the surface, the court was considering a straightforward challenge to the admissions policy of a Jewish high school in London. But the case, in which arguments concluded Oct. 30, has potential repercussions for thousands of other parochial schools across Britain. And in addressing issues at the heart of Jewish identity, it has exposed bitter divisions in Britain’s community of 300,000 or so Jews, pitting members of various Jewish denominations against one another.

While schools in the UK can base admissions on religion, they cannot base admissions on race or ethnicity.

The case rested on whether the school’s test of Jewishness was based on religion, which would be legal, or on race or ethnicity, which would not. The court ruled that it was an ethnic test because it concerned the status of M’s mother rather than whether M considered himself Jewish and practiced Judaism.

“The requirement that if a pupil is to qualify for admission his mother must be Jewish, whether by descent or conversion, is a test of ethnicity which contravenes the Race Relations Act,” the court said. It added that while it was fair that Jewish schools should give preference to Jewish children, the admissions criteria must depend not on family ties, but “on faith, however defined.”

I have always considered question of how to define Judaism, but I never thought it makes much of a difference. I’m Jewish. It describes my identity, and who I am. Whether that is a race, religion, or ethnicity, I don’t know, or particularly care.

I do not know anything about this U.K. discrimination law, but it strikes me as curious that a school can discriminate based on religion, but not race or ethnicity. Why distinguish. A person’s identity defines who they are. Also, it will be pretty tricky for a Court to step in an divine how to define Jewish faith. Murky indeed. I’ll keep an eye on this, anyway.

But, here is one take on what defines a Jew

No Tweeting in Federal Court, and why I think the Supreme Court should get on Twitter

Apparently sending Tweets during a trial is considered “broadcasting” and the Court can ban it according to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure #53. From United States v. Shelnutt (M.D. Ga. Nov. 2) (H/T Volokh),

A reporter for the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer newspaper has requested that he be allowed to use his handheld electronic device (e.g., a BlackBerry or cellular telephone) during the trial of the above-captioned criminal case to send electronic messages describing the court proceedings directly from the courtroom to his newspaper’s “Twitter” website. The messages, called “tweets,” would then be available to any member of the general public who accessed the newspaper’s Twitter website….

The Court finds that Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibits “tweeting” from the Courtroom and that Rule 53 does not unconstitutionally restrict the freedom of the press under the First Amendment to the Constitution….

Rule 53 states in relevant part: “[T]he court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.” The Court finds that the term “broadcasting” in Rule 53 includes sending electronic messages from a courtroom that contemporaneously describe the trial proceedings and are instantaneously available for public viewing. Although “broadcasting” is typically associated with the dissemination of information via television or radio, its plain meaning is broader than that. The definition of “broadcast” includes “casting or scattering in all directions” and “the act of making widely known.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged) 280 (1993). It cannot be reasonably disputed that “twittering,” as previously described, would result in casting to the general public and thus making widely known the trial proceedings. Moreover, it appears clear that the drafters of Rule 53 intended to extend the Rule’s reach beyond the transmission of trial proceedings via television and radio.

Prior to the 2002 Amendments to Rule 53, the Rule specifically prohibited the “taking of photographs” and “radio broadcasting.” The 2002 Amendments eliminated the modifier “radio” from broadcasting, leaving a prohibition against “broadcasting” generally and not just “radio broadcasting.” This change was purposeful, and although the Advisory Committee’s notes state that the Committee did not consider the change to be substantive, the notes do reveal that the Committee made the change with the intention that additional types of broadcasting would be covered by the Rule. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 53 advisory committee’s note (“Given modern technology capabilities, the Committee believed that a more generalized reference to ‘broadcasting’ is appropriate.”)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the contemporaneous transmission of electronic messages from the courtroom describing the trial proceedings, and the dissemination of those messages in a manner such that they are widely and instantaneously accessible to the general public, falls within the definition of “broadcasting” as used in Rule 53. Therefore, this type of broadcasting is prohibited under Rule 53, unless the application of Rule 53 is unconstitutional because it unduly restricts the freedom of the press under the First Amendment.

It is well settled that the restrictions contained in Rule 53 do not restrict the freedom of the press in an unconstitutional manner. The press certainly has a right of access to observe criminal trials, just as members of the public have the right to attend criminal trials. In this case, the press will be able to attend, listen and report on the proceedings. No restriction is being placed upon their legitimate right of access to the proceedings. Accordingly, the Court finds that its application of Rule 53 in this case does not violate the First Amendment.

I still think the Supreme Court should start a Twitter Feed. Here are a sampling of some possible tweets:

• Cert granted = Petr FTW!
• Cert denied= Petr FTL!
• Dismissed as Improvidently Granted = Cert Fail
• Call for the Views of Solicitor General = @SG, What up?
• Per Curiam Reversal = Epic Fail!
• Reverse and Remand to 9th Circuit: Srsly @CA9, not again, get it right!

Any other tips?

My Thoughts on 20th Anniversary of Berlin Wall Being Torn Down and Remembering the Victims of Communism

Twenty years ago I was 5 years old, and in Kindergarten. I remember my father reading from the front page of the New York Times, and telling my mother that the Berlin Wall came down. At the time, I had absolutely no idea what that even meant, so I have no idea why I would remember that. But that memory is vivid in my mind.

On the Twentieth Anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall,  you should remember the victims of Communism. Never forget the 100 million souls slaughtered by totalitarian dictators. Never again. A Memorial to the Victims of Communism is a brilliant idea.

Check out Reason.TV’s poignant video on this point.

Reposting Randy. Professor Barnett does not allow comments on Volokh, so comment here!

As loyal followers of the Volokh Conspiracy know, Professor Barnett does not enable comments, as he explained in this post. While disabling comments eliminates the supply, it surely does not eliminate the demand. The market always finds a way to equilibrium.

Thus, whenever Professor Barnett adds a post to Volokh, I will repost it here, and enable comments. I shall call it, “Reposting Randy.”

The first installment of  “Reposting Randy” is Professor Barnett’s post  Limits on the Necessary & Proper Clause?

On January 12th, the Supreme Court will hear argument on a case that promises to find a limit to the power of Congress “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.” In this blog post, Cato’s Ilya Shapiro explains:

In 2006, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. One provision of the law authorizes the federal government to civilly commit anyone in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons whom the attorney general certifies to be “sexually dangerous.” The effect of such an action is to continue the certified person’s confinement after the expiration of his prison term, without proof of a new criminal violation.Six days before the scheduled release of Graydon Comstock — who had been sentenced to 37 months in jail for receiving child pornography — the attorney general certified Comstock as sexually dangerous. Three years later, Comstock thus remains confined in a medium security prison, as do more than 60 other similarly situated men in the Eastern District of North Carolina alone.

Comstock and several others challenged their confinements as going beyond Congress’s constitutional authority and won in both the district and appellate courts. The United States successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case.

Cato and I have filed this amicus brief explaining that the the power to make laws that “shall be necessary and proper” must be linked to an emumerated power, which this law is not. As Ilya puts it:

While the government justifies its actions by invoking its implied power “to establish a federal penal system” — itself a necessary and proper auxiliary to certain enumerated powers — civil commitment is unrelated to creating or maintaining a penal system (let alone any enumerated power). Nor can the law at issue fall under the Commerce Clause, because civil commitment involves non-economic intrastate activity.This seems elementary given the text (see above), but it would be a small step towards Restoring the Lost Constitution (now just $13.93!) for the Supreme Court to so rule. The case also provides an opportunity for the Court to inch away from its decision in Raich.

Opine away!

Detroit Shrugging. A City Reborn From the Ashes of Statism?

Detroit is in a sorry state. From Fridays WSJ:

Detroit has been in trouble for decades. It has the highest taxes in Michigan, the highest murder rate in the country, and a dreadful public school system. Only 25% of high school students graduate each year. Its tens of thousands of abandoned homes offer safe haven to drug dealers and criminals. All of this has produced an exodus of businesses—there is no longer a single major department store in the city—and residents. Detroit’s population is less than half of its peak of two million in the 1960s.

With the collapse of the auto industry over the past year and a half, things have gotten a lot worse. Unemployment is now touching Depression levels of around 30%—three times the national rate. Businesses that depend on the auto industry are shutting down and more residents are hitting the exits. This is accelerating the erosion of the city’s tax base, producing a fiscal crisis that seems impossible to escape. The city’s accumulated deficit is currently somewhere between $300 million and $400 million. No one knows for sure because the city has yet to submit its 2008 audit; its annual budget is about $3 billion.

Detroit now more closely resembles a frontier town that needs not flashy stadiums and art institutes but basic services: police, firemen and good schools. Mr. Bing needs to confront the hard reality that the city needs to pare back its liabilities, identify infrastructure it can no longer afford to maintain, and (though this is anathema to Detroit’s political class) perhaps auction off portions of its 140 square miles to neighboring counties, shrinking to a size that its diminished population base can support.

However, check out this absolutely fascinating article about the disintegration, and possible rebirth of Detroit. DETROIT: URBAN LABORATORY AND THE NEW AMERICAN FRONTIER (H/T Adam D. on FB)

I often joke that Detroit is slowly reverting back to the State of Nature. This article confirms my theory, but provides an interesting glimpse on how capitalism and a sense of individualism is spring forth from the ashes of this once statist culture. Because the government has fallen apart, and is no longer able to provide services, people are relying on themselves.

This piece also highlights the absolutely crucial advantage of Detroit. It’s possible to do things there. In Detroit, the incapacity of the government is actually an advantage in many cases. There’s not much chance a strong city government could really turn the place around, but it could stop the grass roots revival in its tracks.

In most cities, municipal government can’t stop drug dealing and violence, but it can keep people with creative ideas out. Not in Detroit. In Detroit, if you want to do something, you just go do it. Maybe someone will eventually get around to shutting you down, or maybe not. It’s a sort of anarchy in a good way as well as a bad one. Perhaps that overstates the case. You can’t do anything, but it is certainly easier to make things happen there than in most places because the hand of government weighs less heavily.

What’s more, the fact that government is so weak has provoked some amazing reactions from the people who live there. In Chicago, every day there is some protest at City Hall by a group from some area of the city demanding something. Not in Detroit. The people in Detroit know that they are on their own, and if they want something done they have to do it themselves. Nobody from the city is coming to help them. And they’ve found some very creative ways to deal with the challenges that result. Consider this from the Dowie piece:

About 80 percent of the residents of Detroit buy their food at the one thousand convenience stores, party stores, liquor stores, and gas stations in the city. There is such a dire shortage of protein in the city that Glemie Dean Beasley, a seventy-year-old retired truck driver, is able to augment his Social Security by selling raccoon carcasses (twelve dollars a piece, serves a family of four) from animals he has treed and shot at undisclosed hunting grounds around the city. Pelts are ten dollars each. Pheasants are also abundant in the city and are occasionally harvested for dinner.

This might sound awful, and indeed it is. But it is also an inspiration and a testament to the human spirit and defiant self-reliance of the American people. I grew up in a poor rural area where, while hunting is primarily recreational, there are still many people supplementing their family diet with wild game. Many a freezer is full of deer meat, for example. And of course, rural residents have long gardened, freezing and canning the results to help get them through the winter. So this doesn’t sound quite so strange to me as it might to you. The fate of the urban poor and the rural poor are more similar than is often credited. And contrary to stereotypes the urban poor often display amazing grit and ingenuity, and perform amazing feats to sustain themselves, their families and communities.

As the focus on agriculture and even hunting show, in Detroit people are almost literally hearkening back to the formative days of the Midwest frontier, when pioneer settlers faced horrible conditions, tough odds, and often severe deprivation, but nevertheless built the foundation of the Midwest we know, and the culture that powered the industrial age. No doubt in the 19th century many of those sitting secure in their eastern citadels thought these homesteaders, hustlers, and fortune seekers crazy for leaving the comforts of civilization to head to places like Iowa and Chicago. But some saw the possibilities of what could be and heeded the call to “Go West, young man.” We’ve come full circle.

Indeed, Detroit seems to be reverting back to the State of Nature, but in a good way. Without the crippling yoke of government, people are starting to reacquaint themselves with the lost concept of liberty and freedom, and self-sustainability.

Perhaps this near-dystopian society poses a glimmer of hope for the future. If our march down the statist’s road to serfdom is completed, government will ultimately cease to exist as we know it. But from the ashes, the fortitude, resiliency, and determination of the human spirit will triumph.

God speed Detroit. Who is John Galt? (waiting for the commenters to rip me for invoking God and John Galt in consecutive sentences)

Pictures of the shrinking Detroit, after the jump.

JoshBlogs will be the Official LiveBlogger for the 2009 Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention

I am pleased to announce that JoshBlogs will be the Official LiveBlogger for the 2009 Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention!

For anyone who cannot attend, I will be providing extensive coverage throughout the conference. You can look forward to:

• Summaries of the events updated in real time, including photographs of the Panels.
• YouTube Videos of cool discussions
• Interviews with some of the luminaries in attendance
• And More…

Check out my previous coverage of the Constitution in 2020 Conference for a glimpse of what to expect.

Please be sure to follow me on Twitter or subscribe to my  RSS Feed to receive instant updates during the conference.

Also be sure to check out FantasySCOTUS.net. The Premier Supreme Court Fantasy League. Play like the 10th Justice.