As an aside on the Kelo decision, I just want to make this observation on Molly Ivins' column on the subject. (link via the Fraters') I too find myself in the strange position of being in agreement with Ivins, and disagreeing with John Hinderaker at Power Line. It feels strange, rather like having too much to drink ( minus the booze ). Anyhow, I couldn't help but notice after reading her column that although she couldn't help taking a cheap shot or two at the president, she was unable to note which wing of the court supported the decision she's complaining about. Well Molly, for the record it was Ginsberg, Souter, Kennedy, Stevens, and Breyer who voted in favor of this decision you so abhor. It was the court's conservatives who joined with O'Connor. You know, the guys you love to hate - Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, are the justices defending the little guy.
Something to consider, yes?