Security of tenure in one's property and chattels provides a measure of autonomy and freedom that cannot exist in a society where the government has unlimited regulatory authority.
I agree. However;

I agree with you that Kelo was incorrectly decided and misunderstands the purposes of eminent domain authority.
But it's not without precedent. That's the thing. C.f. the history of railroad construction in the western United States during the 19th century. (This isn't an excuse; a lot of Constitutional protections were ignored during the 19th century.)

(I would support a Federal constitutional amendment to overrule the effects of Kelo, fwiw. I said so at the time.)

I think that the judges in that case wanted the government to have broad eminent domain authority, so they gave it to them even thought the Constitution said otherwise.
Heh. C.f. "emergency legislation." I don't think a baseball stadium is an "emergency." But can we call that "legislative arrogance," since it was a legislative action?

You suggest that the reader "look at [my] support framework"
Actually, that was me, looking at your support framework. I was outlining my thought process on the matter; the case I was trying to prove was that I had coherent reasons for the conclusion I reached, and that therefore, said conclusion wasn't baseless. I saw things that led me to a conclusion.

and suggest that the Constitutional Law PAC is a creation of the Christian right. That is simply wrong.
The problem is that the only group I've seen them go to that has been talked about that I found when I looked was the Christian Coalition, and it was in a context where I'd found that after you went looking for support from FFN. Slade is certainly not a fundamentalist, so now the key question for me is whether this PAC will fund people to serve those masters. I am very much worried that it will, because of whom it has asked for support.

You listed three things as really core rights above: Life, liberty, and property. I agree that these are the core rights. But the fundamentalist political movement - as exemplified by groups such as Focus on the Family/Focus on the Family Action, Concerned Women for America, the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, and the Faith and Freedom Network, and others - are strongly interested in taking the second, and in some cases the first, away from me. Hopefully, given this, you can see the weight of my concern!

I know that the Seattle PI characterized it as "right-wing" but that was inaccurate.
Okay.

While I am happy to have people know that I am a person of faith, your statements that would characterize me as a puppet for the ideology of the Christian right is inaccurate and fundamentally unfair.
I hope it is inaccurate. I think given the data I had available to me, it was not unfair. And since you've shown up, I've certainly tried to give you all the room you've wanted to present your case.

My support structure is very broad. And if you are serious about not wanting judges to legislate from the bench, my support framework should include YOU--even though you may have liked the outcome of some of my opponent's activist decisions from a policy perspective.
See above. I have multiple horses in this race, or, depending upon how you look at it, none. In a typical race, I am voting for the lesser of two evils (or the least of three), and I will generally vote for the side not allying itself with and seeking the support of the fundamentalist movement. All you have to do is search my 100% original source material cultural warfare updates - skip my summaries at the top, go straight to their words - and imagine them applying to you. I care for my property, but honestly, for the time being, I fear more for my status as a citizen.