I think judges should interpret according the Constitution and what it means. It's not so hard to figure out, all you have to do, IMO, is ignore most of the precedents and go back to the original. But I understand that's not the way it's done.
Still, I think that piece of paper (our Constitution) and its history can continue to exert strong influence, assuming that Americans retain an awareness of it.
I don't consider this to be judicial activism, since they aren't writing "law." A huge mistake, more like. Perhaps a deliberate one, though.
I'll wait to see the effects of this. My thinking at the moment is that there will be lots more eminent domain takings than there have been. It should be easier for the developers to win the cases. And I feel like this ruling may have a much more widespread effect than the one for the railroad rights of way. It could get scary.
Never heard of Patriots for Profit.
It's a term I use to describe those who use patriotism as a means for profit, and at the expense of truth or fact. As we both agree, this isn't necessarily judical activism, yet the talk radio hosts either state or allow callers without correction to state that this is another example of judicial activism. They profit because it keeps listeners tuned in, responding and ad dollars flowing.