[brushcop]

Okay, sometimes I'm a little slow on the uptake, run this by me although I know it's been explained (or send sources) somewhere on Freep threads, how can state law supersede SCOTUS decisions/precedence?

I write real letters (USPS stuff you hold in your hands and read--or shred) a lot, just give me the data to base my flame-out on. Thanks!

[The_Victor]

...how can state law supersede SCOTUS decisions/precedence?

In the ruling, Justice Stevens suggested that greater protection against such takings can be remedied by the state legislatures.

[untenured]

Okay, sometimes I'm a little slow on the uptake, run this by me although I know it's been explained (or send sources) somewhere on Freep threads, how can state law supersede SCOTUS decisions/precedence?

The decision simply means that the federal constitution does not prohibit all levels of government within the US from seizing property for transfer to other private parties. It doesn't require that states allow their local government do this. Instead, states may set stricter limits on eminent domain powers exercised by the state and localities within the state.