boo!

dear working class:

the government can boot you off your homes so that a multimillion dollar corporation can build a megaplex. but don't worry, you'll still get "just compensation." (of course, not as much compensation as you would get if the private corporation negotiated with you directly in the market, but that's just quibbling.) and of course, this is all for the "public good!"

love,
stevens, breyer, souter, ginsburg, kennedy
a.k.a. the "liberal" justices of supreme court of the united states

ouch. :(

i can see wal-mart salivating at this decision...

and now the voice of reason:

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random... The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." -- Sandra Day O'Connor

oh and remember this part from the medical marijuana case? (gonzalez v. raich)

This case exemplifies the role of States as laboratories. The States' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 635, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993); Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 603, n. 30, 97 S.Ct. 869, 51 L.Ed.2d 64 (1977). Exercising those powers, California (by ballot initiative and then by legislative codification) has come to its own conclusion about the difficult and sensitive question of whether marijuana should be available to relieve severe pain and suffering. Today the Court sanctions an application of the federal Controlled Substances Act that extinguishes that experiment, without any proof that the personal cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, if economic activity in the first place, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce and is therefore an appropriate subject of federal regulation. In so doing, the Court announces a rule that gives Congress a perverse incentive to legislate broadly pursuant to the Commerce Clause--nestling questionable assertions of its authority into comprehensive regulatory schemes--rather than with precision. That rule and the result it produces in this case are irreconcilable with our decisions in Lopez, supra, and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 120 S.Ct. 1740, 146 L.Ed.2d 658 (2000). Accordingly I dissent.

sandra day o'connor, standing up for freedom in 2005! i <3 sandy. please don't retire.