Constitution-parsing
I'm not so sure that the SC is on solid ground declining to assert authority in this case.
The power of eminent domain is described in Amendment V: " nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Amendment X is about "power to the people":
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Ritual incantation: "I'm no lawyer, but..." it seems to me that the Supreme Court would have supervisory authority over application by the states of eminent domain as a power enumerated in the Constitution. If the Constitution were silent on the issue, then you could state unequivocally that the court has no jurisdiction. But if the Constitution grants the power of eminent domain to government at all levels, then it seems to me that the court has jurisdiction to decide if that power is being used properly.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Federal government has jurisdiction in the matter of medical marijuana, and that Federal law takes precedence over state law. The Constitution doesn't mention medical marijuana, nor grant any level of government specific power to dictate medical treatment; such things have to be derived from interstate commerce powers.
By what twisted logic does the Federal government have jurisdiction in private medical matters that overrules state authority, in a Constitutional vacuum; yet doesn't have authority to regulate application of a power granted by the Constitution?
The Federal government has authority to oversee elections and pass judgment on election laws in the states, because the Constitution describes how elections should work in the United States. That's a very clear example of the Federal level supervising application at the state level of a power granted by the Constitution; again, why is eminent domain treated differently?
The unfairness of it all is based on selective and unequal application of the Constitution. You certainly can address fairness in the law, at least at a basic level, simply by applying the law evenhandedly. I think that's a bit different from your implication that I"m saying that the USSC should put its thumb on the scales to restore fairness. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that unfairness would not arise in the first place, if the law were being interpreted neutrally and objectively. In this case the interpretation seems blatantly spun to benefit big business and those wealthy enough to put the squeeze on local governments.
I think it's to the credit of the conservatives that, contrary to stereotype, they too think that sucks.