You wrote "I take the article's language as the author knowing this is scamming the Constitution's provision for eminent domain."

As you write, this is your interpretation. It's not the same as "flatly." Another, and in my opinion better, interpretation is that the author is reminding the reader what eminent domain means. Let's see if I can provide evidence for my view.

For reference, the original quote is "The banks have filed two lawsuits alleging that the plan is an illegal abuse of eminent domain, which allows governments to seize private property for public use — like a house in the path of a new highway or a piece of land needed for a new park."

What do other newspapers say when they describe eminent domain?

1) "Another option would be for the county to acquire the property under eminent domain, the process by which a municipality can take over private property for a public good, for a price." http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/01/3262043_p2/um-county-c... (The private University of Miami wants to build a pedestrian bridge across a major road, where 8 students have died since 1989. The city doesn't have the budget for an eminent domain claim.)

2) "There's a new partner in the mix as Aberdeen officials work to buy the now-closed federal courthouse under eminent domain, which allows government entities to take possession of private property if it is in the public interest." http://articles.aberdeennews.com/2013-08-06/news/41141473_1_...

3) "As with the Trans-Texas Corridor, the pipeline dispute seems certain to reopen a legislative debate over eminent domain powers, which governmental entities and so-called common carriers such as utilities and pipelines use to acquire land for public projects after compensating the owner." Fort Worth Star Telegram, reprinted in http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/02/22/v-print/139579/texas-b... . (On the question of if an oil pipeline counts as a common carrier under Texas law.)

Do note how this points out that the Supreme Court isn't the only court to judge the constitutionality of an eminent domain seizure. State courts are also involved, and the Supreme Court usually defers to them, rather than making an overarching statement.

4) The Chicago Tribune articles I looked at never explain 'eminent domain.' I guess they expect their readers to know that already. But quoting from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-01-03/news/060103024... , "Overwhelmingly, the eminent domain cases filed in Cook, Kane, DuPage, Lake, McHenry and Will Counties are for traditional public purposes, such as highways, schools, libraries, police stations--projects that will be owned by the government for the public use. / But a review of court cases filed since 2001 shows local governments have used eminent domain powers in many redevelopment projects where private companies end up in control of the land. / Municipal officials say this is nothing new and the current system should not be changed. Chicago area communities have used eminent domain in this way for decades to dream up new plans, they say."

That suggests that despite your rejection of Kelo, it is not completely out of line with the use of eminent domain over decades. Of course, it isn't, since you're really objecting to the court's decision in Berman v. Parker, and not the more proximate Kelo.

5) In any case, "public use" is a very wide language, and the details are often left to the states. In Nevada, 2011, "A bill by Sen. Sheila Leslie, D-Reno, would strip from state law special provisions that give mining and beet sugar producers the right to eminent domain similar to that of governments." http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/political-eye/bil... . Mining justifies the law saying "The eminent domain law has long recognized mining is a public interest use of the lands and is of paramount interest in Nevada," (http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/government/comstock-reside... )

The is the whole issue, isn't it? "Public use" doesn't seem to have a "plain meaning", or at least not the one you think it has.

6) Elsewhere in the Las Vegas R-J, in an interview with a eminent domain lawyer who defends property owners:

"""Question: What is eminent domain?

Answer: It's the power of the government to take land for public purpose.

Question: Does it ever go through uncontested?

Answer: If the government gets to the point of eminent domain, it's contested. They can't come to an agreement on the price of the property. Otherwise, it's a willing buyer and a willing seller. """

With #1, #2, and #3 I've shown that it's not unusual for newspapers to give an explanation of what 'eminent domain' means. The description is often something very much like "allows governments to seize private property for public use". Thus, the original author's elaboration is just that, and not seemingly a subtext supporting opposition to the seizure.

With #4 and #5 I point out that 'public use' is not well defined, and while the land in most cases will be owned by the government, this is not universally true, with examples from two different stated. Thus, the original author elaboration of "like a house in the path of a new highway ..." is true, though incomplete. (The use of 'like' implies that it's incomplete.)

With #6 I strengthen my thesis, which is that any time there is an eminent domain challenge, it must be premised on how it's a violation of the 5th Amendment, or more often the equivalent definition in the state law. Thus, the original author's statement 'an illegal abuse of eminent domain' describes what has to happen for any eminent domain seizure.

I truly fail to see how the author "flatly" expresses an opinion that "this is scamming the Constitution's provision for eminent domain." What I read is consistent with how eminent domain seizures are usually covered, including those where the land is taken for fully constitutional reasons (as in #2).

So, do elaborate how you get a very different interpretation from the same text. How are you sure that you aren't reading your own beliefs into the article?