Shiv; you really have been drinking the kool aid. It is human nature to root for the underdog. Bashing the rich and laughing at their foibles has been going on forever and is largely an expression of envy. But if you believe that the history of american politics, including judicial history, is reflective of a consistent prejudice against the wealthy I respectfully suggest that you are not using the analytical skills which I respect in your approach to many other topics.
One other point on this discussion which is becoming further off topic with each post; it is logical and consistent that government take special care to protect the disadvantaged simply because they are least capable of protecting themselves. Those at the top rung of society have the means and a system which permits them to assert their interests. For example, they can afford to hire people like us. However those at the lower end of society need assistance to level the playing field. Hence much of the "safety net" and civil rights legislation. One may argue that government should not try to level the field at all or provide minimum protections, and there we must agree to disagree. As to particular pieces of legislation designed to further this overriding principle, there has been both good and bad and in a different forum or over a drink they are subject to debate. You might be surprised to find out how flexible a person who is not afraid of the "L" word can be in approaching problems of this type. That is the underlying premise of this system; free speech and fair debate leads to greater knowledge and better more informed decisions. At least that's a nice theory.
We won't settle the liberal versus conservative idealogy debate here nor should we try. This is a forum to discuss golf course architecture. For what its worth, I think the extension of the eminent domain doctrine is horrendous and a an error in constitutional interpretation which will be corrected with time. I also find it ironic that for the most part, those benefitting from these takings are usually on the conservative side of the spectrum. But my main purpose in posting is to dispute what I view as your distorted historical focus even though we are on the same side of this issue.