> "Public purpose" is inherently a political judgement, not a simple
> question
> of who ends of owning the land at the end of the day. My core position is
> that I don't think courts should be making those political judgements, so
> that's why Kelo was properly decided.
> CB: In general, I am anti-court like you.
>
> Abstractly discussing it, I'm not sure that the distinction of public
> purpose as a political judgment distinguishes it as non-court. For
> example,
> in Michigan , the Supreme Court that voted the opposite way on this issue
> is
> elected. In general, courts are political. Law is politics. Courts render
> political judgments, especially on "political" cases of this type.
My views against judicial review apply strongly only against the federal courts. Not only are many state judges elected but any judgements they make under state constitutions are usually reversible through state constitutional amendment.
The problem with court decisions at the federal level is that the federal constitutional amendment process is so cumbersome and anti-democratic that it essentially leaves federal court decisions without a check or balance.
Nathan Newman