[Dat Mon]

You said..."it appears that the definition of "public use" in the 5th Amendment has shifted from the direct use of the public at large ("...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation") to a more derivative "public good"

EXACTLY. IMO...this ruling goes against constitutional principles..and is truly dangerous...because of the case in Connecticut that was the basis of this decision.

The property that will be seized through eminent domain does not have to end up as commonly held by the government...and thus indirectly by the public as a whole...but it can be property that is taken from one PRIVATE individual...and given to another PRIVATE entity..be it an individual, private company, or a publicly traded company. This IMO far exceeds the original intent of eminent domain law.

[JerseyHighlander]

The scariest part if the legalization of socioeconomic cleansing explicit and central to this case. 117 homes have been taken to be replaced with 80 new homes. Because the values of the old homes were less, the government can now declare them derelict, and start eminent domain against them. For the property tax revenue increases for the government. It's the new American racism, and the Supreme Court have "legalized" the bigotry. In decades to come, this ruling will be seen equivalent to Plessy vs. Ferguson, and there's no better time than today to

Start calling it the Plessy vs. Ferguson of 21st century mulitcultural America.

[liberty2004]

EXACTLY. IMO...this ruling goes against constitutional principles..and is truly dangerous...

This ruling is dangerous, but 95% of American's wont care one bit. Freepers are quite informed, but we are a small minority in a dumbed down society.

I wonder what Mark Levin had to say, I wish I could hear his radio show.