Hangon a minute there.
I feel the roles are reversed in this case...
From what I can tell, the majority in Kelo
is basing their decision on legal principle that it's up to the "tryer of fact" (lower court) to distinguish what constitutes a legitimate usage rather than the Supreme Court. This is based on a philosophy of least interference that is usually championed by those of a more conservative bent.
The minority appears to be arguing that the decision will result in an undesirable and unfair result. They may be correct--but they are thus arguing that the Court disregard the current law in favor of a fairness agenda--something usually opposed by conservatives.
I draw from this conclusion that those strongly opposing Kelo
are basing their decision on whether they like the outcome, rather than the method by which it was decided... since they claim to prefer the courts not "legislate from the bench" even where the law appears flawed.
So it's either conclude that they haven't given it much research, or only care about "legislating from the bench" when they disagree with the result.
I tend to think of Kelo
as an example of judicial restraint that can be double-edged. Plus I'm not particularly alarmed because in many cases the legislatures followed up with stricter laws, which is exactly what's supposed to happen instead of "legislating from the bench".
This may not apply to you, if you have a different analysis from mine. It's obvious you HAVE researched it.
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"