Funny how this dramatic and egregious abuse of government power is almost totally ignored by the mainstream media, obsessed as they were with protecting the Constitution from perceived harm during the Bush administration. From their rhetoric, you'd think they truly cared about the People.

In reality, they care about needling Republicans and blaming them for everything from Clinton's bad golf game to Katrina to comets crashing into Jupiter. They're even blaming Bush for the attempted bombing on Christmas day. So they eagerly trump up accusations when it's time to kick the GOP, but when the Left commits ACTUAL offenses, the media is fast asleep.

One begins to wonder if maybe their objectivity has gotten just the tiniest bit flabby. Indeed, I think it's had the very heart attack the Left fervently wished upon Rush Limbaugh all weekend long. When it comes to protecting the People, the Left thinks taking by force the private property of hard-working citizens and giving it to big real estate tycoons is "justice" -- when the tycoons are contributing dollars to Democratic campaign coffers.

But what more should we expect from people who hold as a central value the notion that there's no such thing as right and wrong? If they deny the existence of right, how on Earth can they accomplish right? In fact, in their zeal to show that right does not exist they constantly show up on the side of wrong, defending wrong and advocating wrong with stunning fervor. It should surprise no one that such people pay lip service to helping people when in fact they are the most corrupt thieves in government.

Excellently addressed, Michael. There are thousands of such cases of "eminent domain" abuse. Unfortunately, until the Columbia case, citizens have lost their lawsuits time and time again to the interests of billionaires, state and local governments supported by a corrupt liberal justice system. I am not quite sure how and if it is going to be stopped.

corrupt liberal justice system.

out of 9 supreme court justices, there are EXACTLY 6 republican appointees.

This is one of a bazilliion areas where the States need to exert their rights. After the Heller decision many conservative states enacted legislation describing the proper definition of eminent domain and inacting it into law. Those same conservative states are already threatening to do the same thing in regards to health care. It's going to be a showdown kind of year. Good!!!

and in 2005, when the new london,conn. eminent domain was case decided, there were 7, get that 7 republican appointees on the supreme court.

right karl?

Jeff,

Just because six Supreme Court Justices were republican appointees does not mean that their belief system or decision making is conservative. Have you looked lately at the judicial system in general? They are mostly liberal leaning.

Have you looked at republicans in Congress? They hold liberal views and vote with liberals most of the time while pretending to be conservative.

Judges lie and hide their true beliefs until they get appointed, then they show their true colors. The latest liberal appointee to the Supreme Court, the "wise Latina," made herself look so conservative, it was a masquerade for three days. I don't think anyone was fooled but the dumbed down democrats.

Yes, I stand by my statement, most judges are liberal and some are very corrupt liberals.

Really having a hard time figuring out what Jeff is trying to say, but he SEEMS to be pointing out that a majority of the SCOTUS justices were appointed by GOP presidents.

As though being appointed by a GOP president means the justice is assumed to be a Right-wing judge.

I guess he never heard of a justice going south on us, which is happened to many of Reagan's "reliably Conservative" appointments. Jeff appears to be forgetting that usually when a GOP president (or any president) nominates a judge, the nomination still has to get past the opposition party. As Jeff has surely learned from recent events, even a SUPER MAJORITY in the US Senate is no guarantee of victory. It helps, but the GOP didn't have that kind of clout.

The Left does, which is why they were able to ram through the ultra-Leftist Souter-My-Oar even though she's almost as qualified as my cordless drill to sit on the SCOTUS.

Odd that none of Jeff's implied concerns had anything to do with the issue at hand, although he SEEMED to be implying that the problem with abuse of eminent domain stems from a too-Conservative SCOTUS panel. Umm...Jeff, if the court were Conservative, it would by definition concern itself with whether a law or ruling was ACTUALLY Constitutional, not with whether a Democratic campaign donor will like their decisions. But why bother with important little details like that when it's so much easier to just reflexively blame the GOP for everything bad that happens in America -- regardless of the facts.

Really having a hard time figuring out what Jeff is trying to say, but he SEEMS to be pointing out that a majority of the SCOTUS justices were appointed by GOP presidents.

here's a FACT: o'connor appointed by reagan?

now how's that for a little fact if your having trouble comprehending.

The reason you are having a hard time figuring out jeff is because he is misleading you.

The Supreme court did not rule on this. The New York state of Appeals did, which ruled against the original desicion. It is chaired by a Democrat.

You will find that 7 judges did vote. Only two are known to be republican and of those two, one voted in dissention.

my buddy george w., what did you write in your 7th paragraph:

Since then, that term, untethered from serious social dangers, has become elastic in the service of avarice. In 2005, the court held, 5-4, that New London, Conn., could take the property of a middle-class neighborhood and transfer it to a corporate developer who would pay more taxes to the city government than the evicted homeowners had paid. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, dissenting, warned that the consequences of the decision would "not be random." The beneficiaries would be people "with disproportionate influence and power in the political process."

and how did somethng in conn. be ruled on by a new york court?

whom is misleading whom BUD?

i'm writing about a supreme court decision that apparently george w. thinks VERY relevant.

BUD, when the supremes granted writ of cert for the new london,conn. eminent domain case with 3 republicans joining in the majority opinion, THAT case became NATIONAL policy.

perhaps that's the reason george w. mentions new york STATE appeals court in his article/thesis.

George Will is his name. Not George W. And it is very relevant since the New York state of appeals court ruled in favor of the Goldstein case citing the New London case and other cases to suit their needs.

You are correct, it does become national policy, and yes O'Connor was a Reagan appointee, but then your whole debate is bunk because she voted in dissention on the New London case.

These cases remind me of the book, 'the hitch hikers guide to the galaxy'.