I already blogged on this somewhat, but the issue is so important I thought it needed its own blog. Last Thursday the Supreme Court ruled in favor of giving the government, essentially, the ability to take anybodies property away for practically any reason it seems fit. Sure this was already somewhat allowed in the constitution, but on Thursday this was taken to a level so unprecedented, that even traditionally liberal Democrat leaning groups sided with the conservatives on this one.

The Wall Street Journal writes:

No one disputes that this power of “eminent domain” makes sense in limited circumstances; the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment explicitly provides for it. But the plain reading of that Amendment’s “takings clause” also appears to require that eminent domain be invoked only when land is required for genuine “public use” such as roads. It further requires that the government pay owners “just compensation” in such cases.

The founding fathers added this clause to the Fifth Amendment–which also guarantees “due process” and protects against double jeopardy and self-incrimination–because they understood that there could be no meaningful liberty in a country where the fruits of one’s labor are subject to arbitrary government seizure.

That protection was immensely diminished by yesterday’s 5-4 decision, which effectively erased the requirement that eminent domain be invoked for “public use.” The Court said that the city of New London, Connecticut, was justified in evicting a group of plaintiffs led by homeowner Susette Kelo from their properties to make way for private development including a hotel and a Pfizer Corp. office. (Yes, the pharmaceutical Pfizer.) The properties to be seized and destroyed include Victorian homes and small businesses that have been in families for generations.

The Wall Street Journal writes how this ruling will benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.

In his clarifying dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas exposes this logic for the government land grab that it is. He accuses the majority of replacing the Fifth Amendment’s “Public Use Clause” with a very different “public purpose” test: “This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a ‘public use.’”

And in a separate dissent, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor suggested that the use of this power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion–take from the poor, give to the rich–would become the norm, not the exception: “Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.”

That prospect helps explain the unusual coalition supporting the property owners in the case, ranging from the libertarian Institute for Justice (the lead lawyers) to the NAACP, AARP and the late Martin Luther King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The latter three groups signed an amicus brief arguing that eminent domain has often been used against politically weak communities with high concentrations of minorities and elderly. Justice Thomas’s opinion cites a wealth of data to that effect.

Just in case you missed it, it is important to note that the justices that ruled in favor of the government were all liberal Democrat leaning justices, and the justices that ruled in favor of the little guy were all conservative Republican leaning justices. The Wall Street Journal writes,

The Court’s four liberals (Justices Stevens, Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg) combined with the protean Anthony Kennedy to rule that local governments have more or less unlimited authority to seize homes and businesses.

This is what Thomas Sowell had to say:

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s dissent points out that the five Justices in the majority — Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, Stevens, and Kennedy — “wash out any distinction between private and public use of property.” As a result, she adds: “The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

In other words, politicians can replace your home with whatever they expect will pay more taxes than you do — and call their money grab a “public purpose.”

When big government met the little guy, Democrats chose big government. This is yet one more reason why Supreme Court justices are so important.

Both Richard Posner and Gary Becker have more.

Update: Walter Williams has more.