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.

I suppose this is true, but it is also the sort of legal hairsplitting that amounts to an activist judiciary. It is clear that any reading of the normal meaning of the 5th Amendment does not give the government the power to vacate the ownership of a piece of property by one person and bestow it on another person, for the second person's benefit and profit -- that's what Kelo enables, and there is really no way a reading of the plain text can authorize such a thing without twisting its meaning.

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.

No, any textualist would read the text, and assume that it meant what it said, rather than redefining "use" to mean "purpose." That redefinition is, to quote you, giving the document a contemporaneous reading, which is what the majority did in that deplorable decision.

and the same goes for Scalia's Raich decision.

Well, I don't disagree with you on the Raich decision. I never said any of the justices was perfect when it came to textualists. Some of them pay at least SOME attention to the document and its original meaning. Really, if you want to criticize the Raich decision, you should agree with me on the New Deal -- it was the New Deal's twisting of the commerce clause so that it could be used to regulate anything, thereby essentially abrogating the 10th Amendment, that made the Raich decision possible. As I've said many times in the past, if you twist the document so that it can do things you like (Social Security, Medicare and other non-constitutionally authorized powers) it can be twisted to do things you don't like -- restricting the sale of medicinal marijuana. At the bottom, the discussion breaks down into, "which side started this sort of distortion" -- and it wasn't the conservatives who started it.