It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
According to the Northwestern University study, commissioned for the New York Times, the Roberts court has sided with business interests in 61 percent of relevant cases, compared to 46 percent in the last five years of Chief Justice William Rhenquist, who passed away in 2005.
And the study notes the Rhenquist court itself was considerably more pro-business than earlier courts.
Originally posted by RedGolem
I personally thought this was happening some time ago. Now it seems there is some evidence to support it. To me it seems one must now ask what is driving this? Are the judges being paid by the corporate interests? Is there some sort of back lash or funds that is being funneled to them? Or in short, what is in it for the judges to rule so often in favor of the big bunsess?
www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan which promised 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues. The Court held in a 5–4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The City eventually agreed to move Kelo's house to a new location and to pay substantial additional compensation to other homeowners. The redeveloper was unable to obtain financing and had to abandon the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an empty lot.