Notice who the dissenters were. Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia and O'Connor. So it's the court's liberals, plus the increasingly erratic Anthony Kennedy, that are in favor of this. Liberal judges supporting the government seizing private property in order to generate more tax revenue for the government shouldn't really surprise too many people.

I am in shock. How can they possibly justify this? I mean, really truly justify it.

Just wait, it can get worse!

"Say, that {Church|Synagogue|Mosque} over there doesn't generate any tax revenue. But my roller derby would! Someone get my bull-dozer..."

And we need to beat back the aConstitutional Judicial filibuster if we want to prevent this!

Ok do we now have a case for removing these Justices from the bench?

I thought I heard that the Senate can impeach judges (as well as Presidents). Can this be more cut and dry?

Thats such a terrible decision, how did these morons ever get through law school, let alone reach the highest court in all the land.

10000000% unconstitutional.

And to think that the democrats will turn around and say that the evil republicans are all for big business while they are lookin out for the little guy...(i guesse by trampling on their rights and taking their property they are helping them out in some way...)

The U.S. Supreme Court today decided that the Fifth Amendment no longer applies, ruling that local and state governments can seize any property they choose, if they decide that the future use of the property is more profitable than the current use.

The Fifth Amendment - which used to protect citizens against government's seizing of property without due process - joins the First Amendment as obsolete and no longer in consideration. The First Amendment, you may recall, was declared null and void when John McCain, the ersatz Republican, and Russ Feingold - a Democrat whom you'd expect to be a weasel, and who does not disappoint - teamed up to concoct the "Campaign Finance Reform Law," which made it illegal to criticize incumbent politicians by buying TV or newspaper ads opposing - or even publicizing - their policies, stances, or actions. (I hope I'm not too close to any campaign time restrictions, or my next blog may be from the hoosegow.)

Other amendments of the Constitution not being currently used are the Tenth - states' rights to determine their own stances on issues not specifically enumerated in the Constitution having been superceded by a generous interpretation of the "Commerce Clause" to regulate just about everything - and in some respects the Second. Existing loopholes that still allow private citizens to own guns are expected to be closed up in the first 100 days of the Hillary Clinton Presidency.

The remaining amendments are awaiting the actions of the current Congress and Judicial terms, where activist judges and Democrat minorities are planning major offensives to deconstruct the remaining ones. It is not known what rulings will replace the Amendments, but the more liberal of the Supreme Court justices are reportedly looking at French jurisprudence for guidance on interim measures to "tide us over" until new Amendments can be crafted to reflect post-modern political thought.

post-modern political "thought" my hoof