Mark, as I noted in my prior post, conservatives rightly remind us all that many liberties must be vindicated in the political process if they are to be upheld. As much as it pains my libertarian heart to say it, this applies to economic liberties too. And, while I would like to read “public use” as a strict limitation on government use of eminent domain for a small set of purposes, there is little warrant for this interpretation in either the ratification history or the court’s jurisprudence of the past 100 years or so. If conservatives are to be taken seriously when they call for judicial restraint, we have to be willing to accept decisions that allow state legislatures to get away with idiotic things — such as the use of eminent domain at issue in Kelo. I don’t like the practical result any more than you, and I wish a stronger originalist case could be made on the landowners’ behalf. Alas, Justice Thomas’ inspiring dissent notwithstanding, I don’t believe that is the case.