We’re from the government and we’re here to…seize your home

I know I’m coming into this topic pretty late (had to mow the lawn) and there are already extensive roundups on the Kelo decision on Instapundit and Michelle Malkin. The Volokh Conspiracy adds some thoughts and also links to Justice Thomas’ dissent, which is eloquent in its jurisprudence:

I cannot agree. If such “economic development” takings are for a “public use,” any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as Justice O’Connor powerfully argues in dissent. Ante, at 1—2, 8—13. I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and therefore join her dissenting opinion. Regrettably, however, the Court’s error runs deeper than this. Today’s decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In my view, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government’s eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the Clause’s original meaning, and I would reconsider them.

I recall some clown said that Clarence Thomas’ opinions are “poorly written.” Wrong again, loser.