What I mean is that SCOTUS's ruling did not leave it up to the state of Connecticut alone (which would be the pure state's rights position). Instead, it created a national precedent (using the Connecticut case) for all the rest of the states.
Prior to this ruling, elected state and local thieves were unsure how far they could go with eminent domain. They weren't sure how their particular state supreme courts would rule, so they were somewhat inhibited. Now, thieves in every state assume (and probably correctly) that any similar case would ultimately be accepted and adjudicated in their favor by the US Supreme Court. In turn, the state supreme courts, knowing this also, are much more likely to rule in favor of the thievery, knowing that otherwise they will just be overturned by SCOTUS.
"What I mean is that SCOTUS's ruling did not leave it up to the state of Connecticut alone (which would be the pure state's rights position). Instead, it created a national precedent (using the Connecticut case) for all the rest of the states."
Yes, exactly: it said this is not a Constitutional issue. If the Constitution doesn't prohibit these kinds of "takings" for one state, why would it prohibit it for other states?
And again, that's not to say I agree with the Supreme Court opinion. I'm just saying: Of course it's a precedent; why wouldn't it be?