[William Tell]

MortMan said: When a decision has been made during the course of a previous case ("in the line of duty", as it were), the principle doesn't apply.

That is why I don't think that commenting on Kelo would represent "prejudice". The case has been decided. There is no more information available for consideration nor is there any information hidden. A nominee's decision on such a case is no more an impediment to future fairness than the decisions reached by those on the court.

[MortMan]

But the commenter did not evaluate all of the evidence. When a justice looks at a case, they see the whole of the submitted evidence. Someone on the outside doesn't see near as much.

JMHO - I'm an engineer, not a lawyer.

Thanks for a reasoned response, BTW.

[Congressman Billybob]

From reading the Kelo decision, I can guar-on-d*mn-tee that clever lawyers for urban and rural areas will come up with new cases to push the envelope on what constitutes "public use" under the new permissions from the Court. You've heard the saying, "Nothing can be made foolproof, because fools are so ingenious." Well, the same applies to lawyers.

Besides, on a case that sharply and closely divided, there's always the chance that the Court will overrule the Kelo case. In either event, a potential Justice who expressed the opinion that he/she would uphold/reverse Kelo, would disqualify that Justice from serving on that future case.

Trust me, it's a huge no-no.

John / Billybob