Supreme Court Decision Baffles Liberals

A little while ago, a friend of mine sent me a message titled "All Hail the Bush Regime!" that bashed the recent Supreme Court decision that expands the right of local governments to seize private property under eminent domain.

According to the Associated Press:

The 5-4 ruling — assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America — was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

My liberal friends were up in arms. They were angry. Clearly the conservatives have too much power in the Supreme Court. George W. must be stopped (nevermind that he has not appointed a Supreme Court judge yet). "Capitalism has gone too far!" they said.

So I looked into which justices decided this issue. The answer is suprising.

Who decided for it:
* Justice John Paul Stevens (born 1920, appointed by Gerald Ford in 1975);
* Justice Anthony Kennedy (born 1936, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1988);
* Justice David Souter (born 1939, appointed by George H. W. Bush in
1990);
* Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (born 1933, appointed by Bill Clinton in
1993);
* Justice Stephen Breyer (born 1938, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1994);

Those who ruled against it:
* Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (born 1924, appointed by Richard
Nixon in 1971 and elevated by Ronald Reagan in 1986);
* Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (born 1930, appointed by Ronald Reagan
in 1981);
* Justice Antonin Scalia (born 1936, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986);
* Justice Clarence Thomas (born 1948, appointed by George H. W. Bush
in 1991).

It turns out, that the "evil, conservative, right-wing" trio of Thomas/Scalia/Rhenquist actually ruled to support property rights, as defined by the U.S. Constitution.

The "liberal, liberty-loving, progressive" Ginsberg/Souter, the only two appointed by liberal icon Bill Clinton, did not.

Politics can be interesting sometimes, especially when it comes down to actual laws.

Had I not looked it up myself, I would not have believed it.

RELATED LINKS:
Other Politics

HolyCoast writes: Cities May Destroy Your Home to Build a Mall

CNN Reports on the Issue

Stealing, But Getting Away With It

The Moderate Voice Notes That Property Rights Are In Danger