YOU CAN NEVER GO HOME AGAIN, OATMAN… BUT I GUESS YOU CAN SHOP THERE: A couple links on the Kelo eminent domain decision. (I should note that as a matter of constitutional interpretation I don’t know enough about the case, and haven’t yet figured out what I think of my father’s position in e.g. this Legal Affairs Debate Club thing, to take a side. But as a policy matter–the government seized people’s homes! For Pfizer! That’s bad and wrong.)

Cacciaguida:

Another point made by Justice Thomas: if “economic development” is a “public use,” then low-cost housing will always be a tempting target for city planners and state business promoters — so, guess whose houses will usually be the first to face the combination of a check and a wrecking ball.

This decision ought to build cross-coalitions. Liberals who like urban planning, and conservatives who like whatever big business likes, should be pleased. Progressives who like the little guy, and conservatives who like (a) the original meaning of the Constitution and (b) property rights, should be together in mourning.

more

The Institute for Justice’s Castle Coalition (as in, A man’s home is his aforementioned). They litigate, but, as Eugene Volokh notes, “[T]he IJ people are masters at using their cases to marshal public opinion. That often helps them pressure the government to change its policy even without a final decision in litigation. And it also helps them use cases, whether they win them or lose them, to build pro-economic-liberty sentiment generally; they’re especially good at showing how economic liberty helps the little guy.” Why not help them?