Kelo v. New London

What can be said?  This is another depressing decision from the Court for the advocates of freedom.

As with Raich and the  scope of the Commerce Clause,
establishing that the taking of property from A to give to B (even with
just compensation) results in some manner of improvement for the greater
public, “public use,” is not difficult for the nimble-tongued, even if
Justice Kennedy advises us not to worry about such things.

Thomas gets it right, I think, saying that in essence the court has
replaced “public use” with “public purpose.”

He says: “This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold,
against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated
purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but
which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a
‘public use.’”

And we know all too well from Ohio politics just how rarely these vague
promises of new jobs and increased tax revenue actually come to pass.