What did the dissenting SCOTUS judges say about the majority's decision in Kelo?

Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken... To reason, as the Court does... is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property–and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In other words, one view is that the majority simply nullified, i.e. deleted words from, part of the Constitution. (That part of the Constitution was apparently, uh, unconstitutional?)

Up on the Hill, they're actually doing what they should -- attempting to make sure that people's property won't be seized. And they're doing it the correct way: through the legislative process.

While many Democrats have done the right thing (good for them!) Nancy Pelosi is, unsurprisingly, on the wrong side of history again:

"When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court, you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court," Pelosi said.

This is sick and wrong in so many ways.

For one, let's remember this would be a nullification of a nullification. If nullifying things is bad, then let's bring it back to where this started, okay?

Next, let's notice that the Supreme Court essentially took away a right. Where does it say new rights can't be created? In Pelosi's mind, apparently, unless private lands are seized, the Court's decision won't be "enforced" -- as though the court said towns must do this, not that the Constitution didn't yet prevent them from doing it.

But what's really sick here is the view that it is somehow legally or morally wrong to pass legislation which conflicted with a previous court decision. Using the same logic we could say Congress shouldn't be passing a flag-burning ammendment because it would nullify a previous ruling that made burning the American flag legal.

Such a way of thinking effectively turns the Constitution on its head, utterly inverts it. You then say it is the Court's job to make new law, and that Congress can only work within the limits of what was decided already -- thus effectively reversing the role of the judicial and legislative branches.

I fear this strongly anti-freedom meme could become rather popular among the left, as legislatures increasingly scamble to put back together each law or right the courts imagine into or out of existence.

Update: Mark Steyn:

"It is a decision of the Supreme Court," said [Pelosi]. "So this is almost as if God has spoken."

That's not how Abraham Lincoln saw it: "If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court ... the people will have ceased to be their own rulers."

Some don't want people to be their own rulers. Other plans have been made.