"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.... Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful." -- Clarence Thomas
Since you are apparently not at all familiar with the circumstances of the case then let me point out one important fact. In the Kelo decision, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Connecticut Supreme Court which originally ruled against Kelo. So if you are truly the Lost Cause advocate as you claim to be then you should be praising the Kelo decision as a triumph of state’s rights because the big central government refused to step in and mandate how a state should act. Instead, the Supreme Court declared that Connecticut was empowered by the Constitution to run its own show within its own borders so long as those actions did not violate the U.S. Constitution. Now we can disagree with the state court’s decision that the seizure was legal, but agree or disagree it is the right of the state to set its own laws. And if the people of Connecticut disagree with their definition of ‘public good’ then it’s their right to change their lawmakers. In any event, it was not the duty of the Supreme Court in this case to step in and impose a solution on Connecticut.