About Maine Appeals

  • With the launch of this blog, we seek to discuss issues relating to appeals and appellate law in Maine, including the activities and decisions of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court and First Circuit Court of Appeals relevant to Maine, and other participants in the Maine appellate community.

About the Author

Caveat

  • This is a site offering non-comprehensive commentary, and seeking to prompt a dialogue about issues relating to Maine appeals. It is not an attempt to provide legal advice.

    This blog may be construed as an advertisement, but should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances, nor does it create attorney-client privilege.

« A stumble, not a kick, so a $5000, not $250,000 spanking | Main | car accidents and juries »

June 20, 2010

Comments

Zach Heiden

Nice analysis. Two further points: In Section C, Justice Scalia takes issue with the reluctance of Justice Kennedy and Justice Breyer to say more than absolutely necessary about the nature and scope of judicial takings, which seems to contrast with his position announced less than a week ago in Ontario v. Quon, where he criticized the Court's elaboration as "excursus". And, Justice Kennedy's suggestion that this case could easily be decided as a Due Process matter should have had more appeal for textualists like Justice Scalia. Since this is a case about state, rather than federal, action, this might have been a good occasion to note (as Prof. Joe Singer has in response to the Kelo decision) that there is no takings clause in the 14th Amendment, which is startling when you compare the text side-by-side with the Fifth Amendment. Either the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had a reason for leaving out this specific prohibition, or else they ran out of ink--it is hard to imagine a third option.

The comments to this entry are closed.