[jwalsh07]

"An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority ... . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean... . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it." Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798) (emphasis deleted).

O'Connor has found her conservative inner self, Kennedy has found his fascist inner self. Who'd a thunk it?

Congress can not allow this to go unchecked. It is the Dred Scott of property rights. Foregt the flag, amend the Constitution to protect private property!

[Glenn]

Congress can not allow this to go unchecked.

Congress receives a lot of campaign money from real estate interests. They'll make a few smug noises about the matter and wait for the dumb public to accept it.

[Sandy]

Pray this is the grand finale for Justice Stevens.

[Torie]

Apparently it is well settled that government can condemn to fight blight. I suppose one can litigate what "blight" means. Oh goodie. If the government can condemn to do that, why cannot it condemn for other important public policy purposes, which as raising more tax revenue to provide more funding to fight the blight in its school system, or to reduce commute times (by e.g. having office buildings nearer to residences) so that less needs to be spent on transportation, or for cleaner air, etc? What is so damn special about blight (or roads or for government buildings etc)? Do we really want a consitututional principle that gives one recalcitrant homeowner the power to hold up the works?