"We don't like anybody messing with our dogs, our guns, our hunting rights or trying to take property from us," says state Sen. Jack Biddle, a sponsor of the law.
As the owner of two Labrador Retrievers, I'm with Sen. Biddle on this one.
Other states are exploring similar legislative and state constitutional responses:
Calling the high court's June 23 ruling "misguided" and a "threat to all property owners," [Alabama Governor Bob] Riley said, "A property rights revolt is sweeping the nation, and Alabama is leading it."
The backlash against the judicial ruling has not received much attention in the national press, although legislative leaders in more than two dozen states have proposed statutes and/or state constitutional amendments to restrict local governments' eminent-domain powers.
Besides Alabama, legislation to ban or restrict the use of eminent domain for private development has been introduced in 16 states: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas.
Legislators have announced plans to introduce eminent-domain bills in seven more states: Alaska, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Ohio, South Dakota, South Carolina and Wisconsin, and lawmakers in Colorado, Georgia and Virginia plan to act on previously introduced bills.
In addition, public support is being sought for state constitutional prohibitions in several states -- Alabama, California, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey and Texas.
I have been contacted by some cities that are considering similar limitations as well (I'm not sure if they are public yet).
Sadly for Justice Souter, the story does not report New Hampshire as one of the states looking at imposing such limits, so it looks like he is stuck having to take his chances with the political processes to try to fend off the private developer that wants to build the Lost Liberty Hotel on his property.