[ARCADIA]

This is the comment I have heard from a few sources:

"On the Justice Department's historical research: As I udnerstand it, the Jsutice Department was prepared to file an amicus on behalf of New London, but did not because of political considerations, not because of its view of the legal merits."

I pick the quote up from here (however, keep googleing and you will find more): http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_06_19_corner-archive.asp

Have you ever heard the President speak out against the Kelo vs. New London decision?

[IncPen]

Have you ever heard the President speak out against the Kelo vs. New London decision?

No, but it wouldn't seem prudent to do so. There are plenty of issues on which the President doesn't speak out. What would be the purpose (unless you're a Clinton or a Kennedy) of speaking about something that everyone agrees was a bad decision? I don't see an upside to wasting political capital where it's not needed.

I have in mind the President's signing of the campaign finance bill. Everyone here thought that it would be booted by SCOTUS... it wasn't, but it still functioned to Bushs' advantage- and made its supporters rue the day they even imagined such a monstrosity.