The New York Times and Kelo: It's a coverup for the liberal wing of the SOTUS

Tom McGuire catches the New York Times playing favorites in its Kelo coverage.

Yes Justice Stevens is a bit remorseful in giving the green light to the bulldozers, the pencil pushers at City Hall and their private developer friends. But what's this? No acknowledgement of Justice Thomas's ringing defense of private property. Naw, that would be too much for the Gray Lady. The editors can't possibly give Thomas a plug for sticking up for poor homeowners and principle. Instead it's Stevens who's the apple of the Times' eye as state legislatures far and wide undo the damage done.

Remember the end game for the Times is to obscure the fact that it was the liberal wing that cut loose goverment power to rob the poor in favor of tax-fatten private developers -- not the conservative wing. It would be best if we forgot that the liberals who perverted the concept of eminent domain.

Here's the New York Times

The Supreme Court seemed to invite such a response [legistalive action curbing eminent domain] in its narrowly written ruling in the case, Kelo v. City of New London. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, expressed sympathy for the displaced homeowners and said that the "necessity and wisdom" of the use of eminent domain were issues of legitimate debate. And, he added, "We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power."

Two months after the ruling, addressing a bar association meeting, Justice Stevens called it "unwise" and said he would have opposed it had he been a legislator and not a federal judge bound by precedent.

Here's Tom McGuire fisking the New York Times hagiography of J.P. Stevens.

The life and hard times of Justice Stevens, strict constructionist.

Well. Just as sophisticated Muscovites learned that it was what was *not* in Pravda that was as important as what was, so to do savvy readers of Pravda-on-the-East River know that the answers can often be found in the empty spaces.

In the case at hand, common sense guides the answer - if Justices Scalia and/or Thomas had led a majority that provoked this reaction, it would have been mentioned by the third paragraph. Hence, even casual court-watchers unfamiliar with Steven's reputation will correctly guess the truth - the Kelo decision was achieved by the liberal members of the Court.

But it may take readers with a longer memory to recall that the Times
editorialized *in favor* of Kelo at the time.

Meanwhile over at An Inclination to Criticize. Carina calls the New York Times bluff on today's Kelo coverage. It appears the Gray Lady has a distorted view of what qualities comprise a "neutral observer." Activist government types like the Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute are hardly "neutral" when it comes to Kelo v. New London. They favor the grabbing,not-so-dead hand of busy-body government. Just like the Times does. That's neutral? Some cherry pick!