The Dog is Dead, but the Tail Still Wags

The Dog, of course, is Socialism, and the tail appears to be wielded by our own Supreme Court. Observe.

So now, if the city government deems that you aren't using your land to the proper economic benefit of all, it will take it from you, and give it, not to the public, but to ANOTHER private corporate interest, who will presumably have plans to stick a mall there.

It sounds like something out of the Democratic Underground's nightmare, as rich captialists throw the honest yeoman out of their homes to get wealthier. It sounds like something out the 19th century. It sounds like the nightmare of Bushitler tyranny finally showing its ugly face.

Except the eminent Justices who approved this decision were not the kind Bush wants to nominate. It was Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. You know, the liberals. The conservatives on the court, Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices Scalia and Thomas, all dissented, joined by perennially swing-vote O'Connor, who wrote the dissenting opinion.

How does this work? Is it Bizarro day and they just didn't tell us? Nope. Read the justification by Justice Stevens:

The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue

Isn't that neat? Your house can be taken and turned into an Ambercrombie and Fitch whether you like it or not, provided that the local government has "carefully formulated" (by which they mean...?) that it will be of greater benefit to the whole. This is beyond socialism, beyond Communism, beyond even Fascism. We've regressed back to feudalism, with the local authority installing those that will provide it with the greater revenue, and damn the peasants if they don't like it.

Yet, somehow, some way, someone on the Left will find a way to transmogrify this into a Republican evil.


Update: I appear to have been wrong. Many Lefties are also peeved, as they should be. Good for them, and here's to us all getting together on a truly bi-partisan issue. But not Atrios:

Yes, this is a bad decision, but we must think of what the alternative might have been. I don't know what was in the hearts of the justices who ruled the way did, they may be fully on board this apparent belief in the unlimited power of eminent domain. This is not something I support. However, the alternative could've been a conservative written opinion severely limiting the power of eminent domain and the concept of public use, which would've eviscerated a truly necessary government power.

Hmmmmm...seems to me this logic sounds familiar. "Yes, it sucks, but we'll keep it so long as dirty filthy Bushitler hobbitses can't play..."

Better Kelos than Scalia?

Better Saddam than Bush?

It makes a body wonder...