Since when have you cared about the "intended limit" of a clause in the Constitution? That would be an statement about "original intent," and you have repeatedly repudiated the idea that we can know the original intent of the Constitution in any meaningful way.

Clearly, the founding fathers (again the shorthand) did NOT intend the sort of moneymaking landgrab authorized by Kelo. This may be why they chose the word "use" over "purpose" or that may only have been a felicitous use of language -- but any other reading of the language invalidates its reason for existence. So clearly ONLY a textual reading of the document can support Scalia and Thomas' contentions in Kelo.

I'm sorry, but "use" and "purpose" are only synonyms in some contexts, and this text does not support their interchangability in the Constititution.

As for the conservatives on the court voting in a conservative way, my real response is "big deal." I haven't heard you complaining that the liberals on the court vote in liberal ways. The Constitution was written by men, and they knew the people coming after them would be people, not saints, which is why there are controls written into the document to give no one branch too much power (the courts have extremely limited power to enforce their decisions, for example).

And I don't find their beliefs all that predictive. You mentioned "Terry" in your laundry list, and the ruling on Terry stops was antithetical to mainstream conservatism, and yet supported by Thomas, certainly (and I think by Scalia as well). Given that, it seems their beliefs aren't as predictive as you would have it.

Thus they are only less "activist" than any of the "activist" judges that any observer of the court, who cared about the future of the country, would criticize.