Rejecting the proposition (advanced by Professor Eric Claeys) that the Rehnquist Court's conservatives have missed an opportunity to transform takings law, this commentary demonstrates that a nuisance-based theory cannot provide a comprehensive basis for takings clause jurisprudence. The commentary further establishes that no plausible vision of originalism supports a nuisance based theory, and concludes by arguing that judicial scrutiny of state and local land use practices is less deferential than it was at the inception of the Rehnquist Court.