How is the "Kelo Decision" consistent with Liberals favoring the plight of the 'little guy'?

Question

Liberals in government and in the realm of political ideas tend to court groups and individuals whom they see as disadvantaged. They poise themselves as 'defenders of the little guy'.

Unions, racial groups, women and homosexuals tend to favor Democrats at the polls because of the high concentration of liberal ideology in that party.

Republicans and conservatives on the other hand are largely perceived to cater to big business and money.

The Kelo decision was a case that made it from the city of New London, Connecticut, to the highest court in the US.

The question:
Can eminent domain be used by local government to transfer property from one private entity to another?

The decision would find the moderate-liberal justices in the majority and the unlikely pairing of all the conservatives with the single most liberal justice dissenting.

The court allowed the seizure. The little guy was quashed in favor of an alliance of big business and government.

Where were the Liberal justices when the 'little guy' needed them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Eminent_domain

Who in government defends the individual (the ultimate little guy)?

Answer 1

It always has to do with politics. A justice's political beliefs form the foundation upon which he or she will view every case. That is why the battle of ideologies is so great at time of appointment. In this case, it is my opinion that conservatives are more likely to look to the original intent and determine that the government did not have the power requested. A liberal justice is less likely to limit governmental power in such a case. To do so may open the door to a flurry of challenges to government action. This case was billed as taking from the poor to give to the rich, what happens when the reverse is then challenged?

Answer 2

Well, you see, it goes like this. The city of New London decided that they wanted to please big business, and help out a lot of little guys. To they decided to take property from a few owners (only semi-little guys) and give it to the big business (the big guys). That way they could collect more taxes and political contributions from the big business, and use that money to give handouts and buy votes from the really little guys.

See, that almost makes sense. The only people hurt are the ones that happened to own something some rich guys wanted, and everybody else is happy.

The Supreme Court has just let everyone in the country know for sure that they really don't OWN anything. They can just occupy land as long as the bigger fish doesn't want it.

There are now moves afoot in many states to prevent this kind of nonsense from happening there. It is a big stink everywhere.

I would be quite happy to see impeachment proceedings begin for all the Supreme Court Justices who joined in on the "Kelo" decision.

Oh, yeah, I'm a Democrat.

http://www.hendrixcampaign.com

Answer 3

It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative politics. the 6-3 decision was rooted strictly in the law, a law that was not found to be unconstitutional, even if it assaulted our sensibilities.

Without a doubt, government can legally take land for 'Public Good'. The argument that redevelopment of a blighted area is not for the public good was difficult to make. The fact that it enriched a private developer is moot, if it is established that the benefit to the public is the primary purpose and outcome.

Still, it was a distasteful tactic on the part of New London and a distasteful decision by the court. But the court had little room to rule differently. Since that decision, many local and state governments are refining their eminent domain statutes to limit the taking of private land for private development.