Much has been written of one of the worst decisions to be handed down by the US Supreme Court since Dred Scott.  Indeed, it appears that most people, Liberals and conservatives alike, are decrying the decision as just plain wrong and bad.  And those that are not decrying it usually fail to grasp the ramifications of the decision.

The decision basically means if you can buy a governing body (pick a small one so you do not have to spend much money), you can have anyone's land you desire.  Period.

And that decision was handed down by the liberal wing of the Supreme court.  The very people who are supposed to be bleeding hearts for the little guy, just shat all over the little guy. 

And my response to the liberals who are moaning? Thank you for your reasoned opposition, but you just got what you asked for.

Yes, asked or wished for.  For that is the exact rulings that the conservatives decry.  This was not a 'big guy' vs 'little guy' argument.  This was about your rights vs the government's.  And you just lost.

But why are they called the 'liberal wing'.  Is it not true that 2 of them were appointed by republicans?

Very Definitely.  Souter and Kennedy were appointed by Bush I and Reagan respectively.  And while Kennedy, along with O'Connor, are usually viewed as the court Moderates, they are usually (almost always) on the winning side of a 5-4 decision.  Souter is just a liberal that use to be in moderate clothing.  Some may argue he is a moderate, but his decisions show him clearly to be on the verge of falling off the extreme left of the spectrum, into the loony bin.  So the only 'non-liberal' candidate is really Kennedy, and one can only wonder what the hell he was thinking.

For it is clear that Ginsberg and Breyers are on the Loony left, and Stevens is just a senile old liberal.  They are always on the side of government over individuals, and more power to the government.

The commonality of the liberal vs conservative cliques on the supreme court is the same as that which now perplexes the senators over recent nominations.  Liberal Justices make laws, Conservative ones try to interpret laws.  And the liberal leadership, unable to convince a majority of Americans of the correctness of their views, can only get their laws passed by judicial activism.  And so a jurist that tries to do their job, and interpret laws instead of making them is an anathema to the liberals.

But now, the SCOTUS has laid bare the problems with liberals and their dogma.  For when you assign that much power to one branch of the government, often the wielders of that power leave the reservation and do things you don't like or agree with.  And there is nothing to stop them.  It is in their makeup and their ideology to legislate from the bench, but once appointed, liberals cannot dictate where they will go with that legislation.

Conservatives do not have that problem.  Yes, sometimes a ringer slips through like Souter, but for the most part, conservative Jurists only try to interpret existing laws, and therefore are not at risk to leave the plantation and start making their own laws.

So when you defend the liberal clowns in the US Senate for practicing racial profiling of competent qualified judges, just remember, it may be your house next. And you will only have yourself to blame.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.