It?s a pity neither Daren nor George Will will have a chance to ask Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor the question Will poses in his latest Newsweek column:

The Fifth Amendment says: “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation” (emphasis added). All state constitutions echo the Framers by stipulating that takings must be for “public use.” The Framers, parsimonious and careful with words, clearly intended the adjective “public” to narrowly circumscribe government’s power: Government could take private property only to create things?roads, bridges, parks, public buildings?directly owned or primarily used by the general public. In 1954, the Supreme Court broadened the meaning of “public use” to include combating “blight.” But in 2005, in a radical unleashing of government, the court drained the phrase “public use” of any ability to deny government an untrammeled and life-shattering power to seize the property of individuals and businesses. It held that New London, Conn., did not violate the takings clause when it seized property of persons with modest incomes for the purpose of turning the property over to businesses that would pay higher taxes. So, Judge Sotomayor, what, if any, restrictions do you think the “public use” requirement puts on government takings?