How is "eminent domain", if legally applied Eminent domain cannot, by definition, be "legally applied" to seize property from one person and give it to another. Only "public use" (e.g. essential government infrastructure such as fortifications and post roads) is eligible.
Huh? So if the government says "we want a new highway and your house is in the way...get the f**k out" that's just peachy. But if the town wants to increase its commercial tax base by building a mall, that is "fascism". Welcome to Soviet Russia right here on FR. All bow to the government and its impartial wielding of "public interest" (which of course has NOTHING to do with campaign contributors, right?)
Of course none of you notice that I have never advocated either side in this dispute...I have argued that eminent domain, as established, is fundamentally flawed. Adios.