Does the Supreme Court understand eminent domain?

At the end of Federalist Paper No. 62, Publius (in this case, it is not known whether the author was Madison or Hamilton) explains the dangers of a nation governed by laws which are considered mutable and flexible.

• The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?
  
  Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the FEW, not for the MANY.

Do these two paragraphs summarize the current status of American politics? The wealthy among us give large donations to politicians and the parties, and in turn the legislators enact favorable legislation, thereby helping the wealthy to amass an even larger concentration of the wealth in our economy, which they then donate to politicians and parties...and the cycle continues.

In recent decades, the scheme has progressed beyond inserting certain loopholes in the tax code or granting no-bid contracts to particular private corporations to something much more sinister.

Today in the Supreme Court of the United States, a case is being heard which will have a tremendous impact on the future of our republic. In towns and cities all across the country, local government officials have taken it upon themselves to use the various eminent domain laws to transfer property from one private owner to another.

As originally intended, the eminent domain provision was meant to provide the ability of the government to commandeer private property for "public use" such as building a fire station, a military base, a post office or a courthouse.

I don't think for one second that the men who wrote the Constitution thought that the term "public use" would be stretched to mean higher tax revenues, but that is just the argument being presented to the Supreme Court. These local politicians have gotten so power hungry as to believe that they have the ability to transfer property from one owner to a developer or a corporation so that the tax revenues generated from the property are higher, and therefore the public will benefit via increased funding for roads, schools, parks, libraries, and so on.

If the Supreme Court goes along with this, I believe that the entire concept of private property will have been declared dead, and along with it will soon follow our entire Bill of Rights, because the concept of individual liberty hinges almost solely on the right to own property.