Actually, this seens to be an issue which has liberals and conservatives in complete agreement. Liberals disapprove of the ruling because it allows wealthy corporations to displace poor families, conservatives because it allows the government to take from private individuals.

However, CarolC is right, the Supreme court was ruling on the constitutionality of the principle of "eminant domain" based on current law and precedent, not on its morality.

I think that in the wake of this decision we will find a raft of legislation defining "public benefit" more stringently, since eminant domain is a thorny concept and one that is highly vulnerable to abuse. And speaking historically, even when projects clearly benefitted large numbers of people, the initial impact of the project was more often felt by poor people than by the wealthy. For example, when the highway systems were built through urban area they were often routed through poor neighborhoods, while wealthy ones were relatively undisturbed (Robert Moses was famous for this in NYC).

But please, let's not demonize liberals, or conservatives for that matter. ALL solutions have unintended consequences, and one of the most valuable contributions of the "loyal opposition" is to help bring them to light before it is too late. Also, liberal is not a synonym for socialist or Democrat. Time was, when being concerned for the welfare of one's fellow man, particularly those less fortunate than oneself, was called "Christian." (With no respect intended here for any of the world's other great religions, many of which share that ideal.)