So the optimal strategy is to seek to seize two of the five fascist-land-development judges' homes so they have to recuse themselves, and a 4 to 3 majority can overrule Kelo v. New London.
I say, go after the property of the five justices that oppose private property rights. What muawiyah was saying (post 19) was that we should even go after the Justices that were in the minority (the 4 judges who dissented in favor of property rights). If we did that, the USSC would not be able to rule in the case (since all 9 would have to recuse themselves) and we would still be stuck with the Kelo decision as a USSC precedent. I would rather have the 4 justices that dissented be able to decide the case (and based on the Kelo breakdown, we would have a 4-0 ruling that would toss out the Kelo precedent).
Although, it would be amusing to have one of the 4 make a tongue-in-cheek dissent to poke fun at the 5 that would be recused.