The New York Times editorializes today in favor of the Kelo decision with The Limits of Property Rights. Henceforth, I suppose we shall not see any further discussion on the limits of property takings.
But I must comment upon one strawman the editorial page editors used in this editorial:
It also is a setback to the "property rights" movement, which is trying to block government from imposing reasonable zoning and environmental regulations.
Um, because this case was all about reasonable zoning and environmental regulations? Or have we come to expect gratuitious demonization of political opponents at every opportunity as a matter of course? And aren't the quotation marks around the words "property rights" just precious?