Use or purpose - there is nothing to twist. If the use was simply to hold the land for some period until a proper means of development can be found, then that is a use. And if that period is a matter of hours, the Constitution puts no textual or intentional limit on it.

Thus any TEXTUALIST would necessarily have to agree with the Kelo decision. But of course Thomas came into it with a belief about the outcome and then used contemporary understanding and reading of the text to justify his position. Thats neither textual nor original - that's "contemporary values" aka Living Constitution.

and the same goes for Scalia's Raich decision.


These are not "originalists" or "textualists" in any meaningful sense of the word. They simply are activists that align with your agenda.