The 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the New London, Conn., Kelo case was described as follows by The Associated Press:
WASHINGTON ? A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may
seize people’s homes and businesses against their will for private
development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where
economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.
Why not “bitterly divided”? Most 5-4, or even 6-3, decisions by the SCOTUS in recent years have been characterized that way.
For instance, when the court ruled 6-3 in June 2002 that executing the mentally retarded was unconstitutional, Jan Crawford Greenburg had this to say on PBS’s NewHour:
“Well, the vote today was 6-3, but the court
was bitterly, bitterly divided.”
When the Supremes voted 5-4 in June 2004 on the issue of judges going beyond sentencing guidelines, The Washington Post ran with this:
A bitterly divided Supreme Court ruled yesterday that only juries, not
judges, may increase criminal sentences beyond the maximums suggested
by statutory guidelines, a decision that throws into doubt sentencing
procedures used by nine states and possibly the federal government.
In anyone knows the criteria for bitter divisions on the court, please let me know.
