Per David's Kelo anniversary posts below, skeptics are probably right to question the sincerity of the White House's halfhearted embrace of property rights last week. Back in 2004, when Kelo was pending before the Supreme Court, the Bush administration not only refused to file an amicus brief on behalf of the property owners, but was actually on the verge of filing a brief on behalf of the land-seizing local governments.
The Institute for Justice's Clint Bolick wrote at the time:
Last week I wrote about a conversation I had with Sam Walker, the University of Nebraska criminology professor whose research was abused by Justice Scalia in the Hudson case. I mentioned that conversation to ex-Reason associate editor Matt Welch, who's now at the L.A. Times.
That turned into an op-ed for Walker in today's paper. Excerpt:
The misuse of evidence is a serious offense — in academia as well as in the courts. When it's your work being manipulated, it is a violation of your intellectual integrity. Since the issue at stake in the Hudson case is extremely important — what role the Supreme Court should play in policing the police — I feel obligated to set the record straight.Read the rest of this post »
Last week on my personal weblog, I ran an excerpt from Dan Baum’s essential book Smoke and Mirrors about how the 1986 overdose death of Maryland University basketball star Len Bias led to the 1986 Anti‐Drug Abuse Act. The act is arguably the most militant, draconian crime‐fighting bill ever passed by Congress.
Much of Baum’s book is told from the point of view of Eric Sterling, a congressional staffer who helped write most of the 1980s drug laws, but who has since become a vocal opponent of those laws, and of the drug war in general.
Yesterday, Sterling and Julie Stewart of Families Against Mandatory Minimums had an op‐ed in the Washington Post arguing that, sadly, the legacy of Bias’s death isn’t an end to the use of illicit drugs, but an exploding prison population, violence, and increased drug use — all caused not by Bias’s death, but by Congress’s overreation to it.
Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page covered similar ground this week.
I'm still amused at conservatives who call the Kelo decision "activist" and make it an exhibit in their jihad against "activist" judges. See the House Republicans, the Alabama Policy Institute, or the American Conservative Union.
But the Kelo decision wasn't wrong because the Court was activist. It was wrong because the Court failed to actively enforce the Constitution's restrictions on government. As Richard Epstein wrote in a Wall Street Journal column, "Justice Stevens's lamentable opinion was the polar opposite of judicial activism. Indeed, it represented a deadly form of judicial deference to legislative action that makes a mockery of both the text and purposes of the 'Public Use' Clause."
Of course, just to complicate the matter, one could say that a court is activist when it finds powers for government that are nowhere granted in the Constitution. In that case, the Kelo Court was activist.
June 23rd was the anniversary of the Supreme Court's infamous Kelo decision, allowing local governments to transfer property from one private owner to another so long as there is some perceived public benefit. And, of course, there always is some benefit; as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in dissent, "Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory" — because in each such case the city would get more tax revenue, and the city council would regard that as a public benefit.
On the anniversary of the decision, homeowners Susette Kelo and Pasquale Cristofaro finally settled with the city of New London on the terms of their eviction.
Also on the anniversary, President Bush signed an executive order that, in the words of a Washington Post headline, "Limits Eminent-Domain Seizures." The Post and the AP should have learned by now to be more skeptical of Bush administration claims. The executive order really does very little. It says the federal government will only take property from its owners "for the purpose of benefiting the general public." But the Supreme Court has just said that virtually anything goes under that standard.
As I purchased $10 worth of trinkets at the Container Store, the clerk began the transaction by saying, “May I have your phone number?” I replied, “Uh, no.” And that was that; without any objection he rang up the transaction.
One way people can protect their privacy is by saying “no” more often. Companies ask for information, but they often don’t require it.
A couple of years ago, a guard at the White House looked at my driver’s license and told me, “You shouldn’t use your Social Security number as your driver’s license number.” So there’s another tip: ask the DMV to assign you a random number for your license.
None of this, of course, will stop your bank or phone company from giving up your information when the feds ask. But there are steps everyone can take to keep our lives just a little more private.
It should have been an invigorating story for free‐marketers.
Saturday’s New York Times describes how competition from health care clinics in retailers such as Wal‐Mart and CVS is pushing traditional doctor offices to be more responsive to customer needs:
Professional societies for family doctors and internists are urging their members to break with tradition by making it easier to schedule appointments — or even making appointments unnecessary in the case of walk‐in patients who need immediate attention.
“It’s a big trend,” said Amanda Denning, a spokeswoman for the American Academy of Family Physicians, which has about 94,000 members.
The academy is spending $8 million on consultants who visit doctors nationwide to suggest improvements in patient care. The advice is meant to “keep them from going to an in‐store clinic,” Ms. Denning said, while also benefiting doctors by making office procedures more efficient.
Speedier appointments for patients who need immediate attention, more efficient office operations, and (the article later states) increased doctor office revenues as more (satisfied) patients are treated. American health care would certainly benefit from such a shot‐in‐the‐arm.
So, naturally, the American Medical Association wants to perform a competition‐ectomy. The Times goes on to report:
At its annual meeting this month, the American Medical Association called on the clinics to accept a list of principles that would limit their scope to simple services and ensure that a physician oversees the operations.
“Patients want quick and easy access to health care services, but they shouldn’t have to worry about the safety and quality of care provided in these clinics,” said Dr. Rebecca J. Patchin, an A.M.A. board member.
Once again, the AMA is making sure health care providers will do no harm … to AMA members’ bottom lines.