Replies

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".

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.