Kelo V. City of new London is one of the most critical cases in the history of Supreme Court of United States. In the case the justification presented from the local government side looks like weaker. On the other hand, the petition from Kelo and his allies in this case would be more strong and lawful.
Buy Supreme Court essay paper online
The local government’s decision to use the public property for the benefit and economic prosperity of the public was actually dull stance. Moreover, taking property from one private owner and give it to other private owner would not have any sense at all. However, after a comprehensive discussion and hearings on the legal aspects the Supreme Court has put its verdict against the property owners and in favor of local government by giving additional compensation to the property owners.
The most considerable thing in this case is Sandra Day O’Conner’s dissenting opinion. He categorically refused to acknowledge the version of local government and argued that the stance taken by the local government actually not governs the benefit for the people and economic revitalization. But, it actually presides over the benefit of influential people who have power in the political process i.e. the large corporations and development firms.
The dissenting opinion of Sandra Day O’Conner becomes the fact when local government does not find any financer to redevelop and the redevelopment plan was abandon. It shows the immaturity of government and wisdom of Sandra Day O’Conner t foresees it as the bad norm in the society.
This case has charged the adverse impact on the judges about government policies. At the same time, this instance has made the politicians unworthy and suspicious the American political system. Therefore, this case has grate relevance to the charge of the adverse impact caused by activist judges on the American political system.
Up to what point decisions to sensitive issues like this should be decided by the court?
A court is supposed to decide the issues. Even though, the issue cited above is more complex and has political involvement. But, the issues cannot be segmented by sensitive or non sensitive. Therefore, issues should be discussed into courts without any political influence and should be decided according to the law of the land.
Is our system becoming sort of juristocracy? Or should the representatives in Congress which are elected by the people pass/make laws which represent the will of the people while maintaining a balance of civil society?
It will be good if government representatives in congress pass the laws to balance civil society. But, if the executive would not have any interest to make or pass any such laws – Then it is duty of judiciary to take care of people rights and maintain a balance in the civil society.
Are property owners being offered just compensation?
In the case above it is not about the compensation. But, it is about the basic right of personal choice. Therefore, it should be mutual understanding not imposing on as it can be seen in above case.