[Captain Rhino]

Everybody!

Read the opinion! Read the opinion! Read the opinion!

Read it here:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108

[PhiKapMom]

You are wasting your time if the last few months are any indication on here -- facts don't count!

[Flyer]

The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue

Eminent domain to increase tax revenues is wrong.

[tumblindice]

Read Sandra O'Connor's dissent, read the dissent! read the dissent! read the dissent!

You say read the opinion, and we did, and we agree with the dissent.

Justice O'Connor and the conservative justices are looking out for the middle class, while "liberal" justices hosed us.

And DU will continue their drum-beat that conservatives are the party of vested business interests.
I really resent, I find insulting your innuendo that those of us appalled at this further erosion of our constitutional rights, well, like those "gun nuts", they just don't . . understand, you know, those neanderthal conservatives. Sounds like something you'd hear from the "loyal opposition".

[savedbygrace]

I read it yesterday. The majority opinion effectively changes the language of the 5th from "public use" to "public purpose". That is the big deal about this decision.

The USSC is once again amending the Constitution without a 2/3 vote in the Congress or a 3/4 vote among the States.

So, thanks for pointing people to the opinion posted at FindLaw. It shows exactly what is being done with this case, and it is a very bad thing. Future cases will measure the facts against the term "public purpose" rather than "public use". So, the Founders' Constitution is shredded in this regard.