First, Our colleague Robert H. Thomas discusses a neat case out of the Fifth Circuit in which the court gives deserved credit to the Pacific Legal Foundation’s advocacy, and explains why the fershluggene ripeness rule of Williamson County does not, and doctrinally speaking, cannot apply to cases where the plaintiff-property owner complains of deprivation of due process, rather than an uncompensated taking. It’s about time some sensible federal judges started putting an end to this misuse of twisted legal doctrine. Go to www.inversecondemnation.com, the post of May 15th, entitled Fifth Circuit: Williamson County Ripeness Doctrine Does Not Bar Due Process Claims in Federal Court. Good show, that, with a link to the opinion.
Second. Check out Ilya Somin’s post (and esuing comments) on the Volokh Conspiracy, spotlighting abuse of eminent domain in Virginia as a departure point — click here for a Richmond Times Dispatch article by Barton Hinckle on that subject. Somin’s piece stimulates a discussion of left v. right views on abuses of the power of eminent domain.
We find some of these academic quarrels a bit much at times, but you can disregard the academic folks’ woolly-headed excesses and get an insight into this controversy that leaves unanswered the question of why people who profess to be all in favor of the poor, downtrodden members of society, and against “large corporations,” cheer when the selfsame downtrodden folks are callously evicted from their modest homes and apartments for the benefit of large, wealthy corporations for whose financial gain the takings of private property are pursued. See e.g., 31 Univ. Hawaii L. Rev. at 467, notes 185-203. If you can explain that one, let us know.