Supreme Court - what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.

I thought Congress was overreaching with their steroid laws, but they've got nothing on the Supreme Court. Anyone who doesn't see a problem with an activist Supreme Court (by activist I mean a court that believes the Constitution is a living document) should read the Kelo v. City of New London decision on eminent domain. Five clowns on the Court made a de facto decision that part of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional. Yes, you read that correctly. The Constitution doesn't mean what it says. The Fifth Amendment allowed the taking of private property "for public use" (with compensation) which had always meant roads or airports. These five dickweeds ruled that "public use" really means "public interest" which means that New London, CT can confiscate people's houses and give them to a private developer because his hotel/office complex will generate more tax revenue than simple family dwellings.

I had always thought that to amend the Constitution, you needed two-thirds of both houses of Congress and the states. Yet, five judges have managed to do it on their own. Asshole justice Stephen Breyer even admitted that pretty much anything can be considered in the "public interest". So, that means that this particular part of the Fifth Amendment has been done away with by five people. Not just five people. Five people who are a combination of two of the least respected professions - lawyers and politicians. Is this how our government is supposed to be run? To basically allow five individuals, whose sole qualification for the job is that they could make it through confirmation hearings, to completely re-write our Constitution?

What I really want to know is where are the liberals? Several conservative and property rights groups have come out against this decision (one is trying to use eminent domain to take Justice David Souter's house to replace with a hotel), but I don't see any liberals. Who do you think will really be affected by this decision? I remember when Donald Trump tried to use a New Jersey development commission to take a house from a little old lady to expand his casino parking lot. Fortunately, Trump lost, but does anyone really think that his house would ever be threatened by eminent domain? Of course not, the only people who are in danger of having their property taken for "redevelopment" are lower income people who aren't politically connected. Yet, where are the liberals? Shouldn't they be demanding protection for the little man against the rich corporate developer? I guess they are so wedded to getting more taxes to blow on meaningless shit that they'll throw an old woman out of her home to raise their tax base. Well, private property rights are a cornerstone of freedom, so I think the composition of the Supreme Court needs to change, because five of the bastards we have apparently are unaware that the Constitution was designed to set limits on government not expand it's power.