Reply #13: You're right. It goes to the "stopped clock rule" [View All]

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

I would have almost never thought that I would ever find myself in agreement with those guys about anything. But in this case I am.
********************************************
I completely agree with Sandra Day O'Connors dissent:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783.html
{Stevens's opinion provoked a strongly worded dissent from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote that the ruling favors the most powerful and influential in society and leaves small property owners little recourse. Now, she wrote, the "specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."}
*****************************************

The apologists for the ruling say that it leaves the rules for eminent domain under the control of the states who can craft their own laws that specifically forbid eminent domain to be used for the benefit of private developers over the small guy. The problem with that being that state legislatures are EVEN MORE prone to being in the pockets of the bigs guys and the law is subject to the whims of whatever legislature is in session. There is no overarching protection anymore from the federal government. The decision sickens me. The fact that it was reached by the liberals on the court sickens me even more.