[LS]

"volumes of law have been enacted to correct the errors contained"

They have? Better tell that to Thomas. He cited them as the basis for law yesterday---except he argued they were misapplied. But he did NOT say there was ever any "correction."

My point stands: if the language isn't sufficient to win the case, it's time to change the grounds of your argument.

[spunkets]

"They have? Better tell that to Thomas. He cited them as the basis for law yesterday---except he argued they were misapplied. But he did NOT say there was ever any "correction."

Misapplied... The focus is fed law and the Constitutional meaning of the sole, explicit justification for property rights taking under the 5th Amend.

Bottom line from the dissent:

"If such “economic development” takings are for a “public use,” any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as Justice O’Connor powerfully argues in dissent.

What the Court has erased was the precedent.