First of all, Eminent Domain is not the taking of land for private uses. Eminent Domain is the concept of the government's ability to take land. In the U.S. Constitution, it's limited to taking for public uses with just compensation. Being "in support of eminent domain" and being in support of "taking private land for private uses" are emphatically NOT the same thing.
Secondly, there's a lot of space between being "in support" of something, and mandating that same thing as a matter of law. Your argument is analogous to stating that a baseball manager doesn't support steroid use if he doesn't mandate that every player use steroids (He just looks the other way and covers a few backsides while 5 or 6 guys on the cusp gear up.) Obviously, if he's facilitating and allowing steroid use among his players, he supports it. That's what "support" means. Similarly, if the Supreme Court is telling state governments, who it has previously found are bound by the 5th Amendment, that they are allowed to disregard the words "for public use" and engage in takings for private use instead, then they're "in support of" eminent domain takings for private uses. Don't take my word for it. The decision says very clearly that the logic used to support this decision is that by taking land for a private use which increases tax revenues, the public benefits (because we all know that higher tax revenues, by definition, mean public benefit.) Furthermore, the decision continues, if these private uses benefit the public ( a VERY big "if") then they must be considered "public uses" and not private uses. Therefore, the decision concludes, private uses which result in higher tax revenue are actually NOT private uses (your third grade English teacher was an idiot) but, in fact, public uses, and therefore magically become legal under the Constitution.
Before we go farther, we must recognize that the originalist intepretation is not the same thing as the plain-text interpretation. To understand the meaning of "public use," we must examine the original meaning of the term and not simply the dictionary definitions of the words. That said, I do indeed agree with your interpretation of "public use."
The Supreme Court's actions were in support of the idea that local legislatures are better able to make decisions about what is "public use" than the federal courts. This has been the way the Supreme Court has handled eminent domain cases for some time.
Kelo is simply an extension of the theory that the Supreme Court is not the right body to make every decision about whether or not the proposed taking is for a "public use."
Here's a quote from Stevens:
The disposition of this case therefore turns on the question whether the City’s development plan serves a “public purpose.” Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field.
The decision also places a restriction further than "I want it." Again, from Stevens:
It is further argued that without a bright-line rule nothing would stop a city from transferring citizen A’s property to citizen B for the sole reason that citizen B will put the property to a more productive use and thus pay more taxes. Such a one-to-one transfer of property, executed outside the confines of an integrated development plan, is not presented in this case.
Now, clearly, this is not much of a restriction in practical terms. However, the Supreme Court is saying that there needs to be some evidence that the project will improve the community in some way beyond increased tax revenues. As local legislatures will determine whether or not this is true, the provision is not very important in practical terms. However, what we say from this is that, again, the Supreme Court is deferring to local legislatures in determining what constitutes "public use" whenever possible.
I should be clear that I
do not agree with this reasoning, I am simply explaining it.
Marshall, it seems you believe I support eminent domain. I do not support eminent domain in any form, including for the construction of highways or any other classic example you may think of. I am simply trying to explain the logic of the decision.
In terms of my view of what the decision should have been, I believe the interpretation of "public use" should be that government needs to own the seized property in the future, as well as that the project cannot be done without the taking.
