Replies

In 2005 the Institute for Justice took another eminent domain case to the Supreme Court. By 5-4 the Court held that the city of New London, Connecticut, could take the property of Susette Kelo and her neighbors so that Pfizer could build a research facility. That qualified as a “public use” within the meaning of the Constitution’s “takings” clause. The case created an uproar.

Polls showed that more than 80% of the public opposed the decision. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor issued a scathing dissent: “Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms … The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.”

See how they slipped this in. Nothing to do with Trump.

RE: See how they slipped this in. Nothing to do with Trump.

Trump supported the Kelo decision.

See here:

Trump on Kelo: I happen to agree with it 100 percent

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/20/trump-on-kelo-i-happen-to-agree-with-it-100-percent/