The show is hosted by two prosecutors, so in various episodes their opinions skew heavily pro-prosecutor, but when laying out facts like going through a SCOTUS case they tend to be more fact based and less opinion based, I have found.
Just finished listening and have to say that was incredibly bias and wilfully withholding discussion. The obvious other part to me is “just compensation”, that’s the right that is being provided in the amendment. But they never discuss that, they focus only on “public use” - which while can be discussed shouldn’t be the only avenue of discussion. And they continually talk as if Kelo’s property was taken without compensation. I know prosecutors are supposed to argue their case and ignore everything else, and that’s what they did. This was certainly not an academic exercise to present and discuss all information. I certainly won’t be subscribing.
They talked about just compensation, but the change and precedent provided by the Kelo case was in the lowering of the standard for taking. Thus the focus on that. Compensation or not, the land was taken against the owner’s will.
If they covered compensation it was so brief (and lopsided) that I missed it. I think over half the point of that phrase of the amendment was about compensation. But all they said was take take take take private take private take. It was overwhelmingly horribly biased for what they wanted. IMHO take isn’t even the right word because that implies taking without compensation, which there was. If you consider them balanced for scotus and biased for the rest, holy shit.
setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 2 months ago
The Prosecutors: Legal Briefs, episode 117.
The show is hosted by two prosecutors, so in various episodes their opinions skew heavily pro-prosecutor, but when laying out facts like going through a SCOTUS case they tend to be more fact based and less opinion based, I have found.
someguy3@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Just finished listening and have to say that was incredibly bias and wilfully withholding discussion. The obvious other part to me is “just compensation”, that’s the right that is being provided in the amendment. But they never discuss that, they focus only on “public use” - which while can be discussed shouldn’t be the only avenue of discussion. And they continually talk as if Kelo’s property was taken without compensation. I know prosecutors are supposed to argue their case and ignore everything else, and that’s what they did. This was certainly not an academic exercise to present and discuss all information. I certainly won’t be subscribing.
setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 2 months ago
They talked about just compensation, but the change and precedent provided by the Kelo case was in the lowering of the standard for taking. Thus the focus on that. Compensation or not, the land was taken against the owner’s will.
someguy3@lemmy.world 2 months ago
If they covered compensation it was so brief (and lopsided) that I missed it. I think over half the point of that phrase of the amendment was about compensation. But all they said was take take take take private take private take. It was overwhelmingly horribly biased for what they wanted. IMHO take isn’t even the right word because that implies taking without compensation, which there was. If you consider them balanced for scotus and biased for the rest, holy shit.