To catch the drift of this thread you've got to start over at KJ's Cheese. This is a conversation , among friends, and you're welcome to join in. Go there, read, and then come back.
C'mon, tee bee! You surely recognize the connection that I was trying to make between Sheehan and whatshimname was not about their respective causes, but about their methods! My modus operandi is to convince lawmakers both behind the scenes and through open discussion about the correctness, or incorrectness, of the position taken by the Court, not to threaten or embarass them personally. However much we might dislike the outcome, it was the result of a great deal of thought by some of the smartest jurists on the planet. The result sucked, in my view, and it begs for a response a legislative response fashioned state-by-state.
Consider, however: But for the media's (and my own) victimization of the "little old lady in New Haven," isn't this decison exactly the kind of inflamatory libertarian kindling a federalist movement should cherish? The Supremes have thrown down, in spades, a gauntlet, through which the American people might choose their course, and it has provided them the reason to excercise the very rights we have accused the Court of denying us. Kelo (might) stand for the proposition that it's for the states, not the Feds, to decide the extent of eminent domain. Its message is clearly: "Get off your ass, people. Fix your own rights." I am not entirely sure that was not the real "point" the Court meant to be taken away.
On the face of it, of course, the Court's decision flies in the face of the "takings clause." More subtley, perhaps, the Court has invited the states... no, it has forced the states, to come to grips with the internal conflicts existing between the pervasive and state-promoted inequalities between in-state and out-of-state interests, fostered by interstate competition for economic expansion, and reflected in permissive state laws granting exorbitant tax breaks and sweetheart zoning deals, and the state's primary obligation to protect the property rights of its citizens. As much as I disagree with Kelo, I must admit that the court has (purposefully?) handed the citizenry a cause célèbre to challenge the corrosive effects on social planning the states have fostered through unchecked abuses of emminent domain.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this is just plain over-reaching by the Court (which was my initial impression). But from such misguided teachings may spring great justice. And maybe I'm just catching on to the lesson.