Right on, Clarence Thomas (thanks to Randy Barnett).
There's been a ton of posts and outrage in the Blogosphere over this one, and I really have nothing to add but my own horror and dismay that, as the Supreme Court has now said, "All your homes are belong to us." (thanks to Instapundit for the notion and the round-up)
The right of property and it's significance in our political culture is huge - as much as I'm grossed out that the government can now transfer private property from one private owner to another (and not necessarily for public use), I'm curious to see what the backlash will be. I can't imagine that any "side" is for this - most conservatives would be against it because conservatives believe that property is a necessary part of liberty, and liberals should be against it because it threatens the little guy (the poor and middle class, usually without political power) the most.
As CT let on before: I don't understand how the Constitution could be bent, squeezed, shaved or molded to be understood to reduce the rights that private property owners have. I may have more rights in my uterus right now than you do in your entire house and the land surrounding it: at least for the time being, the government can't claim eminent domain on my uterus and implant five embryos with the purpose of the public good (ie, creating more taxpayers to support public projects and a larger government bureaucracy).
It was my belief that as our country and political culture has grown, we have expanded and will continue to expand the meaning of freedom and rights - I'm starting to think that this is not the case. I'll close this out for tonight with a few more thoughts:
"The right of property is the guardian of every other right, and to deprive a people of this is in fact to deprive them of their liberty."
--Arthur Lee, "Prejudices" by HL Mencken
"The right to enjoy property without lawful deprivation ... is in truth a personal right. In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property. Neither could have meaning without the other. That rights in property are basic civil rights has long been recognized."
--Potter Stewart, 405 US 538, 552
Feel free to read the majority and dissenting opinions here:
Stevens majority
That bitch Kennedy's concurrence
Sandra Day O'Connor's dissent
Clarence Thomas' dissent
An interesting note that I saw over at Volokh: does Sandra's use of "we" instead of "I" indicate that her dissent was scheduled to be the majority decision? Did our favorite swinger, Anthony Kennedy, play the old switcheroo at the last minute?