Wacky Stevens

Despite my best efforts, I cannot understand Justice Stevens' reasoning in Kelo. Somebody, please, give a brother some help. Following the Justice's clear, albeit, in my opinion, very wrong, explanation of the court's evolutionary interpretation of the "Public Use Standard," Stevens asserts that federalist principles require the court to defer to the judgment of individual state legislatures. Federalist?? Obviously delusional, Stevens opines,

"Our public use jurisprudence has wisely eschewed rigid formulas and intrusive scrutiny in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power."

What? Okay, who took a sharpie to JP's copy of the constitution? Yes, Mr. Justice, there is another phrase following the Due Process clause. And, yes, the 14th Amendment did apply the entire amendment against the states as well. Jeez.

[In my unfrozen caveman lawyer voice] Maybe I am just confused because barely two weeks ago, Mr. Stevens determined that marijuana, grown by an individual with a valid and legal prescription for the purpose of personal consumption, is somehow subject to federal regulation under the commerce clause. Earth to Stevens, where's the commerce? Where's the interstate activity? There is no Wickard-esque market to "substantially effect." As they say in the backwoods around here, "that dog don't hunt." Alright, all together now - this is when we apply the federalist principles. But, then, I am just a caveman...

Maybe that is just too simple. As usual, this whole exercise is just a sham. It's all made up. The black robes simply apply the most convenient legal principle available at the time to achieve the political ends that they desire. And with these justices, the only consistency appears to be the belief that state power is nearly limitless and individual liberty is an exception to be afforded only when it does not interfere with their statist ambitions.