5 ms·
I'd actually love to see this one make it to the supreme court, where I have pretty much no doubt, they would reach the exact same conclusion.
by SEJeff 11y ago
I'd actually love to see this one make it to the supreme court, where I have pretty much no doubt, they would reach the exact same conclusion.
- joezydeco 11y agoOr, the SCOTUS (currently down to 8 Justices) would deadlock and the ruling would fall back to the lesser court's decision in favor of the government. Forever.
- Rylinks 11y agoA tie in SCOTUS does not create binding precedent. Other circuit courts would be free to disagree, and a later SCOTUS could rule against the government.
- DrScump 11y ago... for that Circuit only.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> Or, the SCOTUS (currently down to 8 Justices) would deadlock and the ruling would fall back to the lesser court's decision in favor of the government. Forever. No, a Supreme Court deadlock has essentially the same effect as if the case had not been appealed to the Supreme Court; the Court of Appeals decision stands, but no binding precedent (other than the local precedent already created by the Court of Appeals decision) is created. So, its not "forever", even in the limited sense that a Supreme Court decision is "forever".
- SEJeff 11y ago^ This is the correct answer
- HelloMcFly 11y agoI have a most difficult time believing SCOTUS would deadlock on this issue as it should scratch the "personal property, limited government, narrow interpretation" itch of the conservative justices and the civil rights itch of the liberal justices.
- kevin_thibedeau 11y agoThose same conservative justices who have no problem with eminent domain being used to enrich private entities.
- mkempe 11y agoKelo: - Dissent: O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas - Dissent: Thomas
- swyman 11y agoWouldn't that be this decision? And thus unfavorable to the government?