BTW, the Fifth has several points ~ each of which needs illumination by law to fully understand. CT just didn't illuminate the same way Kentucky, Tennesse and West Virginia might ~ where COAL MINE DEVELOPERS could purchase mineral rights without even notifying surface right owners! USSC hasn't touched that one.
And yet another Trumpette strawman, and just as pathetic as your efforts to defend Trump's support of Kelo. I guess Heller was just another progressive ruling, then, eh? PATHETIC.
BTW, the Fifth has several points ~ each of which needs illumination by law to fully understand. CT just didn't illuminate the same way Kentucky, Tennesse and West Virginia might ~ where COAL MINE DEVELOPERS could purchase mineral rights without even notifying surface right owners! USSC hasn't touched that one.
Even more pathetic. The fact that other eminent domain matters have not been addressed by SCOTUS in no way diminished what an abomination Kelo was. Conservatives on SCOTUS voted unanimously against it. Yet you are raising these strawman arguments because Kelo is such a black mark against Trump.
You might be willing to fool yourself, but that just goes to show how big a fool your are making of yourself on this thread. The rest of us realize just how full of it your are.
I never thought I’d see the day when a FReeper tried to claim that a position staked by Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist was a Progressive effort to rewrite the laws.