They could have simply informed the lower court that their understanding of the purpose of "Imminent Domain" is incorrect; That public need and usage does not extend so far as to allow them to seize property to give to someone else to use to make a profit, and thus indirectly stimulate the economy which might indirectly benefits the state.
Imminent Domain should only be used for immediate and direct benefit to the Citizens and the state, and should not require the involvement of third parties and indirect revenue.
The State Court's understanding is wrong, and So apparently is the Federal Court's, and I don't find these levels of ignorance at all surprising because we see the same sort of foolishness regarding all sorts of other aspects of Law.
Our legal system has become a collection of imbeciles who badly need to be tossed out of it.
And if you grant the Federal Government authority over eminent domain then how can you criticize it when it takes authority over marriage and abortion and what have you?
Having a Federal Court point out to a State court that their understanding of the meaning of Imminent Domain is incorrect is not giving the Federal Government any new Authority over the state. It's insuring that the state recognizes and protects the long understood rights as outlined by the common law, and by specific protections in the Constitution and the Bill of rights.
For example, Bubba Ho-tep's argument about killing left handed people is an obvious violation of the long existing rights understood by all to extend to this class of people. You can't take away fundamental rights through the action of a state court except in punishment of a crime.
So then you're saying it's proper for the U.S. Supreme Court to tell states how to handle things like eminent domain. That there are limits to what the 10th Amendment allows the states to decide for themselves.
Having a Federal Court point out to a State court that their understanding of the meaning of Imminent Domain is incorrect is not giving the Federal Government any new Authority over the state.
Sure it is. It's telling the state that they are not competent to interpret their own state constitution and that the federal courts have to do it.
It's insuring that the state recognizes and protects the long understood rights as outlined by the common law, and by specific protections in the Constitution and the Bill of rights.
You are saying that Connecticut cannot decide for itself what "public use" means. That the Tenth Amendment does not allow it do do that. That only the federal courts can decide that. Your view of what the states can and cannot do seems dependent on the whims of that "Fedzilla" you claim to dislike.
So again, if federal courts can tell the states what "public use" is then why can't they also tell the states what marriage is?