[jwalsh07]

I find O'Connor's dissent singularly unpersuasive. It's OK to condemn private property in Hawaii and give it to lessees because ownership was concentrated, and it's OK to fight blight because it is for the public good, including taking the unblighted within the blight area because it is part of a larger scheme, but it is not OK to take out a nice house which is holding up creating an office park which will serve demonstrated public purposes. O'Connor's standard seems to be if it benefits the poor, or poorer, it is OK, and if it benefits the rich, or the richer, as she sees it through her mind's eye, it isn't.

You really aren't describing her argument but that's neither here nor there. The 5th Amendment doesn't sanction eminent domain for the "general welfare", it sanctions it for "public use". If they meant "general welfare" they were thoroughly familiar with the term. This is simply another example of judicial activism expanding on precedent to the point where private property can be transferred to another private owner if the government feels like it is for a "greater good". Sound familiar?

Do you really find such an analysis persuasive as opposed to well, embarrassing?

What I find embarassing is the majority decision. It is not simply unconstitutional, it is unAmerican and anti-constitutional.

And there you have it my friend.

[Torie]

I take it the two prior decisions on blight and oligopoly are equally unconsitutional in your view. If so, that is certainly a defensible position (and if SCOTUS went that way, we might need a Constitutional amendment). But the Sandra Day distinctions in reading her dissent drove me nuts. They just don't do anything for me.