Jefferson101 at Redstate.org says it as well as anyone could:

“I told you so!”

Maybe I personally did not tell you, personally. But I couldn’t resist starting off that way. A good number of us out here on the leading edge of the Right Wing have been loudly proclaiming for years that this was the way things were heading. And the crowd yawned. All I can say now is “Good morning, boys and girls. Are you awake now?”

I was reading the comments in Pejman’s article, and someone stated that “this was the worst Supreme Court decision ever”. And they were being called to task over that statement. “What about Plessy V. Ferguson? What about Dred Scott?”

What about them? Those decisions left some people enslaved and/or oppressed. That’s bad enough, but this one leaves us all enslaved and oppressed at the whim of the Government. This is, beyond a doubt, the absolutely worst Supreme Court decision ever.

Property rights have always been the cornerstone of our system. The founding fathers recognized that there were some instances in which the public good could require that the Government acquire private property But this decision proclaims that the Government’s economic interest is an overriding “public good” that trumps personal property rights.

The majority decision talks about “legitimate Government interest in promoting economic development”. That is a pretty way of phrasing it, but I hope we all fully aware of what the purpose of this exercise is. New London, Conn., wants to increase it’s tax base. And the Supreme Court has now said that the desire of Government to make more money overrides your property rights.

Pursue that line of thought for a moment. It makes visions of slippery slopes and of huge cans of worms opening dance in my head. Doesn’t it do the same to you? Try one of my “off the top of the head” thoughts on what this decision appears to me to do, just to get started.

For instance, assume that the “municipality” in question has an income tax, in addition to a property tax. (Several do.) Since it is now legal for the Government to take your property and re-sell it to someone for a Mall, what is preventing that municipality with an income tax from taking it from you to sell to someone with a higher income. Does this not equally promote “economic development” for the municipality?

Then we have the lovely “penumbra” of this decision. Fifty or sixty years ago laws didn’t seem to have penumbras, but now that they’ve been discovered, they seem to be finding them attached to most all of them. And I suspect that to a good left-wing jurist, this one has penumbras that glow in the dark. If the Government’s economic interests are more protected by the Constitution than my property rights, how are any of my other rights any more protected if the Government finds an economic interest in violating them?

The Supremes just ruled that I have the right to be secure in my person and property for just as long as it is in the best economic interest of the Government for me to be. And only for that long.

There’s no doubt in my mind. Worst Supreme Court decision ever.