Reason Article Rating

Should an Originalist Justice Support Overruling Kelo v. New London?

Jul 06, 2021 View Original Article
  • Bias Rating

    40% Somewhat Conservative

  • Reliability

    N/AN/A

  • Policy Leaning

    -40% Somewhat Liberal

  • Politician Portrayal

    -38% Negative

Bias Score Analysis

The A.I. bias rating includes policy and politician portrayal leanings based on the author’s tone found in the article using machine learning. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral.

Sentiments

Overall Sentiment

N/A

  •   Liberal
  •   Conservative
SentenceSentimentBias
Unlock this feature by upgrading to the Pro plan.

Bias Meter

Extremely
Liberal

Very
Liberal

Moderately
Liberal

Somewhat Liberal

Center

Somewhat Conservative

Moderately
Conservative

Very
Conservative

Extremely
Conservative

-100%
Liberal

100%
Conservative

Bias Meter

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

60% : Yet the primary constraints on the abuse of such power for impermissible purposes comes not from the Fifth Amendment, but from limitations in state constitutions and the political process (which, thankfully, was energized by Kelo).
57% : The standard argument against Kelo is that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment limits the use of eminent domain to "public use," and that economic development of the sort at issue in Kelo does not constitute "public use," in part because New London gave the property in question to private economic interests.
57% : That the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not impose a "public use" requirement on eminent domain does not mean that such limitations cannot be found under state constitutions.
54% : The general assumption that the Fifth Amendment bars takings for economic development purposes rests on shaky ground.
54% : The key element of this argument is that the Fifth Amendment imposes a "public use" limitation on eminent domain.
50% : Read in the context of the full amendment, this makes sense, for there are all sorts of takings or property for which compensation is not required, including taxes, fines, and seizures.
50% : An obvious objection is that, whatever the Fifth Amendment meant when ratified, our understanding of the Takings Clause, and the extent to which it constrains state governments, was transformed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
38% : To answer this question, it is useful to start with the text of the Fifth Amendment.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.

Copy link