Supreme Court OKs seizure of personal property for private economic development

[Raistlin]

I still maintain that we don't really understand the details of this case, and I don't think the ruling is as bad as everyone seems to think. What would happen if the court had ruled the other way? What if the court said that governments can never appropriate any land for any reason?

Then that would be consistent with the fundamental right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

This ruling puts the states' interests above that of the individual. That, in and of itself, is corrupt. Instead of the government serving the people, it impresses the people into servitude for the government, and the peoples' land to be appropriated at the government's whim.