A question for Roberts to answer in the hearings

[queeg]

Judge Roberts--Recently in an opinion of the court in Kelo v. New London it was held that the government confiscation of privately owned land through power of eminent domain in order to be used for non-governmental interests was ok.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor dissented, saying, "Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public." She added that "the words 'for public use' do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power." In other words, state and local officials can now take your home for another private person to use so long as they can manufacture an argument that the latter use is more beneficial to the public.

We are provided with the Fifth Amendment in order to protect us from government property confiscation. The Amendment reads in part: "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Is taking one person's private property to make it available for another's private use a public purpose? If so, Why? and if not, how might this opinion of the court be reversed if not through "Judicial Activism"?