These arguments are fun and I do appreciate them having spent undergrad sloughing through Philosophy classes having to read Wittgenstein and translated Chinese religious texts I think we should bring it back to home.
 
   1. 99& of us are not lawyers or aspiring law students
   2.  We grow up with an understanding that the Constitution protects our basic rights as citizens
   3.  We now no longer have the right to own land without fear of a zealous entrepreneur or corporation with money and political connections being able to obtain our land, period.
   I don't know where the rest of you are from but here in the South where I live not a week goes by where you don't read or hear about collusion of the wealthy to do things most ordinary people disagree with or blatant corruption in the government (run a google search on the "Tennessee Waltz" scandal for fun).  People have always found ways to @#!* people, always will.  Dog and pony shows and abstract arguments aside, getting screwed in the ass is still getting screwed in the ass. As we no longer have direct constitutional protection of or basic rights to own land without a legitimate reason for the public good anyone with enough creativity, money, power, and patience can get what they want. 
    What do you guys think the long term implications of this are?  What rights will we lose next but not really care about because the economy's making us not REALLY worry about our upcoming Stafford and private loans?  I know what I sound like when I say this but I have to say it anyway, Picture a time when the economy is *&^% and the only piece of equity you have left is your house which can be taken by an individual or class of individuals who have both more political and monetary capital than you.  Being as how no one can accurately predict the future, we should all think of what the REAL implications of this decision is, not now but in the future.

Ok, here's the deal. I took the LSAT in June and October and got a damn 147 both times.  The first time I didn't really study because I figured because of my philosophy (my major at a Southern mid tier liberal arts school) background it couldn't be too difficult (oops).  Busted my ass studying the second time and even recieved some free Princeton Review tutoring.  I scored between 156-158 on real LSATs from a few years ago but I guess when it came down to it I probably suffered from some type of test anxiety or succumbed to being a statistic, whatever.  It certainly didn't help that I had to watch a new baby and work two jobs either.  So I'm taking the LSAT one more time in February.  I'm sending out six applications by the end of the year (Valparaiso, University of Denver, Appalachian State, Barry University, St. Thomas Unversity, and of course Thomas Cooley) and am only taking the LSAT again to try to get into the Unversity of Arkansas at Little Rock which is near my hometown.  My question is this, I've been out of school a year and a half and in that time I've fathered a child and helped open a successful bar.  While a student in undergrad I was a founding father of a local chapter of an international fraternity that consistently took at least 20-30 hours out of my week.  Tack on me working 20-30 hours a week consistently throughout school as well as studying abroad in Costa Rica, Uruguay, Hong Kong, and Honolulu (maybe that one doesn't count) do I still have a chance to go to a school that isn't located in B.F.E. or in an extremely cold climate?  My letters of reccomendation are from the dean of the philsophy department and the G.M. of the bar I helped open.  Whaddya think?