On April 2, I posted this entry about a recent decision by the Texas Supreme Court about the Texas Open Beaches Act. The act makes it illegal to own a beach in the state of Texas and authorizes the state to seize property that, due to erosion, has become a beach. The court ruled that this violated individual property rights, but the decision was not unanimous.
I want you to click on the post and follow the links it contains to the majority decision as well as the dissents. As best you can explain the different positions taken by the judges. Altogether, try to determine how the judiciary of the state of Texas draws the line between the rights of the individual and the public interest, and the conflict associated with it.
A related issue - which you are welcome to speculate about - is whether the decisions made by the judges are influenced by the fact that judges are elected in the state. Property rights groups are increasingly active in state elections - notable judicial elections. Might this decision be a consequence? Sitting judges who wish to win elections might be tempted to make decisions favorable to these groups in order to win re-election. If not, these groups may be able to recruit and fund judges whom they share a judicial philosophy.
