I was so stunned by this decision that I stupidly assumed the conservative justices were behind it. Thank you, Troll, for pointing out my error.

But be that as it may. The decision, good or bad, was grounded in an interpretation of the Constitution. That tells me there is a loophole in the Constitution - unnoticed until now - that requires prompt
repair in the form of an Amendment. For the information of Commonwealth Mudcatters, any proposed Constitutional amendment must be ratified separately by both houses of Congress, and then submitted to the fifty state legislatures. A two-thirds majority of the states is required to turn the amendment into law, a process which usually takes months or years.

(Mary in Kentucky is correct about "fair market value" being a joke. The local government is always motivated to make a rock-bottom offer. You either accept it, or find enough money to pay an attorney to go to court. I know because I served on a jury in such a case. The city was using eminent domain to rebuild a truly blighted slum area. I personally have no problem with that. The city offered one property owner about $18,000 in "fair market value." His own paid expert testified the property was worth $125,000. After reviewing all the evidence, which included what similar properties nearby had sold for on the free market, we decided that a genuinely "fair market value" in this case was about $30,000. That's 40% more than the city offered. Is anyone surprised? And of course another jury might have awarded more - or less.)

Neither liberals nor conservatives have a monopoly on the little political wisdom that exists in the world. However the Court decision may have been reached, it needs to be addressed promptly by both parties in Congress. (If they can stop wasting time with idiotic anti-flag-burning and anti-gay-marriage amendments.)