Supreme Court justice is newage oxymoron

Is Supreme Court justice the new-age oxymoron?

In the nineteenth century, during the most impressive land grab in history, the American colonies seized uncounted thousands of acres of land from Native Americans under the guise of Manifest Destiny and imminent domain.
The justification was; "After all, they're only red savages and they don't know how to properly use or develop the land." The US Supreme Court stood by and did nothing despite the desperate pleas of many prominent Native American leaders.
The good old days of Manifest Destiny have returned with a vengeance, only this time it is through the direct intervention of the US Supreme Court and targets everyone.
In the recent court ruling on the case of; Kelo vs. City of New London, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3 in favor of the town, and the US Supreme Court subsequently ruled 5-4 in favor of the town.
The Fifth Amendment notes, among other things; "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This is the basis nominally used for imminent domain. The original framers of the Fifth Amendment clearly meant that the government should only seize private property to create public things such as roads, bridges, parks, public buildings and so forth.
This new court ruling abrogates our Fifth Amendment right to own property if the property in question is "desired" by a government entity for financial gain. In effect, any local or municipal government can seize and sell our property to someone else who will pay them higher taxes, all in the name of public good or economic development.
Two prominent professors wrote; "This court decision supplies convenient camouflage for eminent domain acts that are little more than corporate welfare in disguise." How true it is!
All a rich corporation or person has to do is persuade the Mayor and Alderman of any town that they can pay more taxes to the town than the current occupants of the property they desire to develop, and behold, scores of citizens can be legally forced from their homes.
Their justification may very well be; "We can supply more funds to the municipal or county treasury than the present owners, thus enriching the lives of all the citizens. After all, they're only a bunch of middle class rednecks!"
To paint a much clearer picture; visualize, if you can, a local Guardsman just returned home from fighting in Iraq. He stands boldly at his door holding a rifle with his terrified family hiding behind him. The Sheriff and his deputies have been ordered to remove him and several of his neighbors from their homes because the county voted to sell their land to a wealthy developer who will pay the county tons in taxes. The Veteran Guardsman, wounded while fighting for his country, insists he will shoot to protect his home and his family. The law is against him! Checkmate!
Although it is unlikely that local governments will use this new court ruling to abuse the rights of its citizens, the fact that remains is; they now have the law on their side. How far would you trust your local government, any government? (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will keep the keepers themselves?)
Supreme Court decisions are by their very nature, the holy of holy and the last word from on high. It is the sworn duty of Congress to uphold our constitution and those rights it provides to the citizens, and yes, they have the ability and responsibility to reverse this damaging court decision.