Replies

Apparently, you missed this in your careful reading of the opinion.

From the last paragraph of the majority opinion (agreeing with the taking)(emphasis added):

"In affirming the City's authority to take petitioners' properties, we do not minimize the hardship that condemnations may entail, notwithstanding the payment of just compensation.21 We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose "public use" requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law,22 while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised.23 As the submissions of the parties and their amici make clear, the necessity and wisdom of using eminent domain to promote economic development are certainly matters of legitimate public debate.24 This Court's authority, however, extends only to determining whether the City's proposed condemnations are for a "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Because over a century of our case law interpreting that provision dictates an affirmative answer to that question, we may not grant petitioners the relief that they seek."

Seems pretty clear to me the court is indicating exactly what you should do if you don't like their ruling. (innuendo intended)

You will find your "loyal opposition" comment is beneath contempt if you read my postings.

Seems pretty clear to me the court is indicating exactly what you should do if you don't like their ruling.

The Opinion of the Court was very respectful of Federalism. How hypocritical. The Liberals on the Court hate Federalism and only use it when they need it to get the result they want. When they didn't want it on the medicinal marijuana case, they junked it in a flash.

Thomas is consistent, though, since he applied the plain language of the Fifth Amendment to show that the drift away from original intent has just gone too far. (His embrace of the incorporation doctrine is not Federalist, of course, but that issue is pretty much settled. Nobody would argue that states can conduct searches in clear violation of Amendment IV, nor impose cruel and unusual punishments).