A friend of mine has parents who are deeply liberal.

Like the stereotypical image of the liberal American -- and I swear I am not making this up -- they like to protest and rail against the great evil which is Walmart. Her mother, for example, frequently sports a "Boycott Walmart" button. Her father also attends many town meetings to attempt to foil Walmart's evil plans to build on property distressingly near their home (several blocks away).

Amusingly, both parents also do what they can to make the Walton family rich. Her mom hides her "Boycott Walmart" button while shopping there (and shops their fairly frequently, I hear), and her dad loves to buy huge quantities of things at Sam's Club.

It seems their dispute with Walmart centers around the fact that sometimes Walmart builds in areas which have been taken from private owners. I have pointed out that Target, Costco, and other big-box stores do the exact same thing. Yet there's a common element that's totally overlooked here: the fact that it is government which actually takes away the homes . Without government actually doing the stealing in the first place, none of these businesses would have access to that land.

It's as though bank employees had opened the vault, and allowed customers to loot your savings account, and in response you rail against those who take the money, but say not a word about the irresponsible bank employees.

Perhaps some folks have a hard time condemning government?

Well, I'm sure many of you have heard by now: The Supreme Court just gave this sort of nonsense its seal of approval. A stunning case in which the Court's most liberal members -- Stevens, Souter, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer -- stood up for the great good of government-sponsored corporate welfare (more money and power for big companies), and against the private rights of "the little guy": as long as a government feels such takings are in the "greater good", and some minimal compensation is provided, local governments can now take private property from little guys and give it to big corporate powerhouses.

The Supreme Court today effectively expanded the right of local governments to seize private property under eminent domain, ruling that people's homes and businesses -- even those not considered blighted -- can be taken against their will for private development if the seizure serves a broadly defined "public use."

In a 5-4 decision, the court upheld the ability of New London, Conn., to seize people's homes to make way for an office, residential and retail complex supporting a new $300 million research facility of the Pfizer pharmaceutical company.

Of course, the hilarious thing is the hypocrisy: aren't liberals supposed to be for "the little guy"? Aren't they supposed to be opposed to helping and subsidizing big, powerful companies? And, most amusingly, in this case the big, powerful corporate beneficiary is Pfizer -- a member of Big Pharma, the industry liberal politicians allegedly love to hate.

So what is the consistent principle here, if not defending the little guy, the weak, and the powerless? Ah yes: (a) unlimited expansion of governmental power, and (b) the principle that the Constitution says whatever an activist judge says it does.

Here's what the fifth amendment used to say (and mean), in part:

No person shall be.... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Obviously, we inhabit a lower vibrational plane than these enlightened souls robed in black, who were able to divine that the founding fathers, when penning this, by "public use" meant wealthy private indivduals and groups. Since everyone's actions affect everyone else, ALL uses are now "public" uses, and the phrase apparently wasn't supposed to mean anything at all. Who would have guessed?

Rest in peace, Fifth Amendment. We will miss you.

The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves right now.

Stolen Update: Bob Cunningham adds: "[T]he irony is that the case defers to the political process in Connecticut, where the governor has just been convicted of malfeasance from undue influence by....real estate developers!"

Update 2: From Donald Sensing via Instapundit:

[T]here is no kind of building more vulnerable than a house of worship, for the simple reason that cities do not collect property taxes from houses of worship, nor any other kind of tax.... In every city and town in America you will find churches sitting on what is now some the most valuable land there.... Mark my words: churches are next.

Glenn responds: "We'll see." Glenn is again a bit out of it: We've seen already. I expect when churchgoers attempt to fight this, it will be again portrayed as an evil plot to implement a "theocracy" and "special rights" -- instead of just being a group of people who don't want to lose the church they've each invested so much to build.

Again, why not? It's been done before. From the link above, where a church is being seized for Costco:

"My neighbors and I have been watching this go on for two years, and we're tired of this big church trying to bully the city by busing its members in from all around the county to harass our City Council," he said. "Given the behavior of the church, we're not seeing its spiritual value. I'm not sure we want them in town."

Those bullies. Wanting to keep their property and all. Arrogant sods! Let's run them out of town.