As much as I support states' rights, if states and municipalities violate individual rights that are expressly stated in the Bill of Rights, then Congress certainly has a right to define that by statute.
Neither party has expressed any interest in challenging this decision. Where shall the 2/3rds be found in either house of Congress to propose a Constitutional amendment and actually pass it?
The house passed a resolution something like 385 to 35 (with several members simply voting present) condemning the decision in very strong terms. That sounds like bipartisan interest in challenging the decision. Several states already have laws on the books prohibiting local govt from using eminent domain for "economic development" purposes, and there is a great deal of public support for more states adopting such laws in light of the decision.
"As much as I support states' rights, if states and municipalities violate individual rights that are expressly stated in the Bill of Rights, then Congress certainly has a right to define that by statute."
Congress certainly has that right unless the Supreme Court says that it doesn't.
This is the problem that we keep circling back to.
Example: the US Constitution says that Congress has the power to set the jurisdiction of the federal courts. But just let the Congress try to deprive the federal courts of the power of constitutional review of anything, and the Supreme Court will strike down the act of Congress limiting the jurisdiction of the federal courts when it comes to constitutionality as itself being a unconstitutional limitation. Whichever way you go, if you follow American precedent, the result is entirely predictable: after much huffing and puffing of the political classes, the Supreme Court of the United States will rule, and that decision will be final. When the Supreme Court created for itself out of wholecloth the power of judicial review in 1803, it was not challenged by President Jefferson or the Congress. And, other than Lincoln, and one incident with Jackson, it has not been directly challenged since then. One can talk about passing laws to limit the court, but it is not even on the agenda, nor would any such law pass absent use of the nuclear option on straight legislation in the US Senate: a position even the Republicans have not dared propose.
"The house passed a resolution something like 385 to 35 (with several members simply voting present) condemning the decision in very strong terms."
And the US Senate...?