Kelo which you are referring to here is interesting thing for you to cite. In particular you misquote the basis for Kelo. The basis is that Government can take ANY property for its purposes as long as it pays "just compensation" That is in the explicit text of the US Constitution.

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Yet when we go to read the arguments of that most conservative textualist on the SCOTUS, ie Thomas, we don't find him actually defending the text of the US Constitution in any way, nor do we find Scalia invoking the original intent of the founders, which included commandeering ships and cargo. No instead we find them arguing a contemporary and value laden reading of that phrase:

The most natural reading of the Clause is that...

So what we have Gringo bent about here is that the "liberals" invoked originalism and textualism in an outcome he doesn't like, while his much vaunted "conservatives"lost when invoking a "living constitution" approach.

And the same happens in Boumediene. The liberals turn to the core text of the US Constitution - Article I Section 9

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

And notice that War is not listed in the reasons for suspension of Habeas. Yet Scalia not only pretends that this matters, he asserts as fact something that never has been entered into factual evidence - a Declaration of War as required by the US Constitution for any sort of War Powers to extend to US Soil (and Guantanamo has been ruled US soil previously)

I shall devote most of what will be a lengthy opinion to the legal errors contained in the opinion of the Court
o o o
America is at war with radical Islamists.
o o o
At least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to the battlefield. See S. Rep. No. 110–90, pt. 7, p. 13 (2007) (Minority Views of Sens. Kyl, Sessions, Graham, Cornyn, and Coburn) (hereinafter Minority Report). Some have been captured or killed. See ibid.; see also Mintz, R

Notice how Scalia claims he will focus on legal errors, but instead goes on to create his own definition of War, introduce his own "facts" which really are "views" (ie opinions) of conservative minority CongressCritters.

Hmm so where is this much vaunted "conservatism"?

And how does limiting The Government's right to suspend habeas "fucking up the rights of law abiding Americans"?

Me thinks that like Scalia, Gringo believes that it doesn't really matter what The Constitution says, as long as a conservative POLITICAL viewpoint is articulated by SCOTUS then we are all in safe hands, but ask us to live up to the challenges of the US Constitution:

Those who would sacrifice any of our precious liberties for a temporary measure of security, deserve neither security nor liberty, - Benjamin Franklin

And all of a sudden things are going to hell in a handbasket.

Cowardice, nothing more than sheer cowardice