...be sure not to piss off the Lord of the manor. From Scotusblog on Kelo v. New London oral arguments:
In Kelo, the plaintiffs may get as many as three votes: Scalia; Thomas (who did not ask any questions); and Rehnquist (who was not there). But it was clear to O'Connor and Kennedy that the Court would have to overrule Midkiff and Berman to rule for the plaintiffs, an approach for which there was no majority. The only possible silver lining for property-rights advocates was that Justices Kennedy, Souter, O'Connor and Breyer all expressed concern that the traditional measures of just compensation under the Fifth Amendment may be subject to reconsideration. Justice Kennedy acknowledged the question wasn't presented in Kelo, but the Court's opinion or a concurrence may raise the issue, opening a new avenue of property-rights litigation.
It looks like the liberals love of untrammeled state power got the best of their rhetorical commitment to the poor and elderly.
Look, I realize that the Bush administration (the idiots) filed an amicus on behalf of big business in this case, but I will point out where liberal jurisprudence is seemingly leading us is nowhere most people want to go. Only the courts conservatives are where they should be on this case.
Let's hope that these oral arguments are not indicative of how the court will ultimately rule. I'll hope but I fear the worst.