Aging Disgracefully

Yes and no. I agree with you to a point. The simple fact is that 99.44% of the outcome of these cases is determined by the way the case is brought to the court.

For example, the medical marijuana ruling came down the way it did because the government brought the case as an infringement of the federal government's ultimate sovereignty over interstate commerce. Never mind that they can't prove that all the pot being doled out came from other states (as opposed to someone's basement). Given that focus, I think the court ruled correctly, even though I personally think it's time to legalise marijuana (and some other drugs).

I haven't read the whole ruling, so I'm at a bit of a loss, but I'm not exactly sure how that case was brought to the court. Overall, I think that eminent domain should definitely exist, but that a really narrow defined scope should be made clear for exactly what constitutes "public use." If the end result is something that is truly owned by the public (such as a highway, or a park or something), then I'm generally ok with it. If they're just transferring property from one private owner to another in order to increase the tax base of a given municipality, that's a horse of a different colour...