Eminent Domain and the Filibuster:Which One Doesn't Belong?

Few things have kindled discussion and ranting in the Blogosphere as much as the recent Supreme Court ruling (Kelo et al. v. New London) that confirmed the right of communities to transfer property rights to others; and the threat to end the practice of the filibuster, by changing the rules of the US Senate.  

I have a couple of observations about this.  Reasonable arguments can be made on both sides of both issues.  Opinions on the filibuster cleaved along party lines; Democrats supporting the filibuster, Republicans opposing it.  Opinions on eminent domain seem more broadly to be negative, without the clean fracture line between liberals and conservatives.  Clearly, there are many people who oppose one and support the other.  

The arguments about the filibuster mainly revolve around one issue: is it ever appropriate to have a system in which a minority can oppose the will of the majority?  And the question of eminent domain hinges on one issue: is it ever appropriate to have a system in which a minority can oppose the will of the majority?  In both cases, one might ask: does the winner always take all?

Granted, the parallel is not exact.  But is it something to think about.  Personally, I support one and disagree with the other.  Now I have to figure out why.

It's a good thing that there is no law that says that all of our opinions must be perfectly consistent with each other.  If there were, we would spend all our time resolving the inconsistencies, and not have any time to drink good coffee.

I actually wrote a bunch about why I do support one and oppose the other, but decided there's no point in posting that.  Both have been blogged so extensively that I really do not have anything to add.