His take on Kelo is among the most ill-informed of any I have run across:
Yes, this is a bad decision, but we must think of what the alternative might have been. I don't know what was in the hearts of the justices who ruled the way did, they may be fully on board this apparent belief in the unlimited power of eminent domain. This is not something I support. However, the alternative could've been a conservative written opinion severely limiting the power of eminent domain and the concept of public use, which would've eviscerated a truly necessary government power.
The "alternative" could've been bad. Sure. the alternative could have still allowed eminent domain but simply raised the burden of proof on local government when there is contemplation of property transfer to a third party. The long and short is that this sort of eminent domain is simply not needed from a planning perspective. Get it, Atrios? It's not needed.