I Must Say It Is Amusing…

…that James’ post on Karl Rove tossing red meat to the party faithful gets more comments than both posts on the undermining of a right enumerated in the Constitution (the 5th Amendment to be percise). Of course, make a dubious claim about library records and it is rallying cry.

It is interesting to note the reaction from the Left side of the Blogosphere as well.

In other words, in looking at the top liberal blogs hardly any of them had anything to say on this. We heard about how awful the Patriot Act was, with the big thing being library records. But when it comes to seizing the property of homeowners and small businesses, well who cares.

FILED UNDER: Economics and Business, Law and the Courts, US Politics, , , , , , , , ,
Steve Verdon
About Steve Verdon
Steve has a B.A. in Economics from the University of California, Los Angeles and attended graduate school at The George Washington University, leaving school shortly before staring work on his dissertation when his first child was born. He works in the energy industry and prior to that worked at the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Division of Price Index and Number Research. He joined the staff at OTB in November 2004.


  1. Meezer says:

    Well, if you own your own home, you are not sufficiently abject, and if you own your own business you probably have all sorts of crazy ideas like believing in capitalism and doing what you want with your stuff, and like that. So not really their milieu.

  2. Anderson says:

    Maybe because the undermining was bipartisan and well-grounded in precedent?

    Mind you, I think Kelo sucked, but it’s not like they were making it all up. We need a constitutional amendment spelling out a stricter reading of the Takings Clause. I’m sure the Republican Congress will be on fire to do so.

  3. bryan says:

    I don’t see how you can say this was bi-partisan, other than than Kennedy is a faux republican. Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter and Kennedy. How is that “bi-partisan”? Did you really mean “maverick”? or “moderate”? Seriously.

    As for grounding in precedent, those arguments are the last refuge of people who don’t have a spine. The SCOTUS overturns precedent at whim (roe v. wade, anyone?). Don’t give us that “well-grounded in precedent” malarkey.

  4. Just Me says:

    Just one more crappy SCOTUS decision in ’05.

    Nice to know that the Supremes have now decided that the state can take your property, and give it to Wal-mart.

    But hey, at least you can buy cheap toilet paper on your former property.

  5. mike k says:

    So sad, so sad. maybe when the House is finished w/ the all important Flag burning amendment proposal (is this necessary) they can make time for this – but w/ their hopes of handouts from big business, I don’t see an amendment coming anytime soon.

  6. Anderson says:

    Stevens: Ford.
    Kennedy: Reagan.
    Souter: Bush.

    (As I pointed out at RedState; I think JustMe was there for that.)

    There are two Democrat appointees on the Court, so kindly don’t blame us.

    Bryan, what Supreme Court decision was overturned by Roe? I seem to have forgotten.

  7. Steve Verdon says:


    While you are correct about who appointed those three judges, they are considered the “Leftwing” of the court. Clearly you don’t think that Souter or Kennedy is to the right of Thomas, Scalia or Rehnquist do you? If so your view of politics is very, very whacked.