Amidst the press encomia being heaped on retitring Justice John Paul Stevens as a protector of the “little guy,” we came across an op-ed in the San Francisco Examiner that remins us of the truth that when it comes to eminent domain, purported defenders of the “little guy” often change sides and pile on . See Timothy P. Carney, Justice Stevens Was No Champion of the Little Guy, April 14, 2010.
Carney reminds us that in Kelo v. New London Justice Stevens was firmly on the side of a government/big corporation alliance out to bulldoze a lower middle class neighborhood for the avowed purpose of enhancing the ambiance of the area chosen for redevelopment for the benefit of executives of the Pfizer pharmaceutical company. Carney’s conclusion is worth repeating:
“Legal scholars can debate Stevens’ legal philosophy, his coalition-building skills, and his demeanor. But before journalists parrot the White House’s line that Stevens was a champion of the downtrodden, they should visit New London where the collusion of big business and big government — with a nod of approval from Stevens — flattened a neighborhood where little guys once lived.”
Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/politics/Justice-Stevens-was-no-champion-of-the-little-guy-90783594.html#ixzz0l58xPgai
Follow up: For a similar take on Justice Stevens’ handiwork in the Kelo case, by the Economist magazine see Lexington, The Worst Decision of Justice Stevens, The Economist, April 14, 2010. Go to http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/04/kelo_stevenss_worst_decision