just desserts?

If Supreme Court Justice David Souter ends up having his property seized by eminent domain in order to build "The Lost Liberty Hotel", it will certainly be just desserts for his role in the decision to permit governmental agencies to seize private property for virtually any reason.

Is this likely to happen? I don't think so. The Supreme Court's decision does not mandate seizure of private property in circumstances like this, it only permits it. The intent of the court can only be interpreted as encouraging seizures of property owned by middle class folks with minimal political clout (poorer folks could generally already have their property seized by simply declaring it to be "blighted'). Celebrities and wealthy folks will be able to protect their property by means other than the fifth amendment clause that has been effectively removed from the Bill of Rights by the court ruling.