Thursday’s decision came one day before the third anniversary of our purchase of “our” home, and the first time since 1981 that I’ve lived at a single address, or even in a single county, for more than three years straight. So just as I was starting to think I owned something for once, the Supreme Soviet said “not so fast!” and, it seemed, turned around and yanked it away. So I’m a bit bummed about that, but would like to say a few positive things about the court:

1. The Coalition of the Oblivious Chillin’ has lost at least one member. Others may follow (or maybe not?), and take at least some of the Gang of Seven with them.
2. The Court did not rule on Lockyer v. Silveira, where the Ninth Circuit did to the Second Amendment what the Supremes have since done to the Fifth and the Tenth, and probably would have done to the Second as well. Many of my fellow gunnies thought it was bad news at the time, but if yesterday’s ruling and Raich are any indication, it’s a safe bet that if the Supremes had taken the case, the four liberal/commies would have ruled that the Second Amendment doesn’t mean anything at all, and Justice Kennedy would have ruled it means you have a right to bear arms but the government has complete, unbridled discretion to determine what is or isn’t an “arm,” or whether you can be deemed to have kept and borne one by proxy if you pay taxes to support our armed forces. There are at least three good guys on the court, though, maybe four, so if the nuclear/constitutional option ultimately prevails, a future court may do better than this one would have. [Note: if you work for the Dog Trainer or the Ass. Press, or if your last name happens to be either Sanchez or Cabeza, you might think that by not hearing the case, the Supreme Court has effectively "upheld" the Ninth Circuit ruling, unanimously so unless someone wrote a dissenting opinion in the decision to deny cert. But you would be wrong.]
3. The Court didn’t really rule on the Newdow case. Had it ruled on the underlying issue, I have little doubt that even today’s court would have found a way to reverse the Ninth and uphold the Pledge, as it should. However, I have equally little doubt that it would have done so in a hypertechnical, Smith - v. - Jones - does - not - apply - because - the - defendant - hit - the - plaintiff - with - a - red - bottle - not - a - green - one kind of way, rather than a gutsier, Lemon- v. - Kurtzman- does - not - apply - because - it - was - a - stupid - decision - and - we’re - going - to - reverse - it - now kind of way. Perhaps the latter is too much to expect from any court, but it’s certainly too much to expect from this one.
4. The ruling doesn’t really apply to me anyway, as California eminent domain law requires land taken to be blighted, and my area is anything but that. Even if RSM decided to arbitrarily label my area as blighted, I’d get the last laugh, as Article 1, Section 19 of the California Constitution leaves it up to a jury to decide what constitutes “just compensation.”
5. In light of #4, this ruling could actually increase home values in California, as ex-castle owners from less fortunate states may vote with their feet up0on realizing how little they actually own now.
6. This line intentionally left blank. At least now some group of enviro-wackos can’t block industrial developments by buying up tiny pieces of land that get in their way.