Do liberal judges favor wealthy developers over regular people?

Not nearly as inflammatory as the ruling. By not overturning the ruling the court effectively said that the constitution does not define public. To overturn the decision would be judicial activism. It would be putting limits on state and local governments that the constitution did not intend.However, part of the purpose of the court is to decide the meanings of various phrases and words in the constitution. The court exists to settle arguments about the meaning of the law. The court did have the opportunity to define the meaning of public. If failed to do so.This idea of taking land for private use by others under any condition is reprehensible. It gives those in political power the authority to use their position for their personal benefit. The corrupt politician can give land to a developer for returned favors.In my opinion the court should have overturned the taking of private land by specifying that public use means use by the government or public utilities for advantage of the public. They could have further prohibited any individual or corporation (other than the owner from which the property is taken) from using that property in any business dealings. There are numerous other possibilities that cannot be exhausted here.Eminent domain should be used to take land for public roads and utilities such as power transmission. The government should own the land (roads) or maybe lease it to the electric company (power distribution). Or maybe the individual could retain ownership and be forced to lease it to the utility.Regardless, the ruling was a major blow to democracy and freedom.Now that the SCOTUS has royally f***ed this up, congress should enact legislation to protect the rights of the individuals. This should be at the federal level. If not, the right of eminent domain could vary so much from state to state and county to county and city to city that it would almost certainly cause massive problems.

I fear that claiming my opinion is from understanding constitutional law would be misleading. I have read the constitution, keep a copy of it on my computer, and have gone back to it on several occasions for clarification, but am in no sense a constitution scholar. I am an engineer, not a lawyer and not an acedemic.That said, I make my opinion from my understanding of constitutional law that the court interprets and does not make law. Here was a time to interpret a specific meaning.To overturn the mentioned ruling would be the correct moral decision, but the court and the government should not be making moral decisions. Part of being secular is not making moral decisions.Are we in whole, partial, or no agreement on this topic?