Do liberal judges favor wealthy developers over regular people?

No, they voted to not overrule the state. I personally have concerns about the taking of private property in this way, but I don't fault the supreme court for concluding that it is a state issue rather than a Federal issue.I do think you wrongly characterize it as liberal vs. conservative. In my book, Kennedy is a conservative. O'Connor often pays more attention to the specifics of the particular case than to broad constitutional principles. If we consider only the votes of the others, it looks more like a case of the idealogical extremists against the rest.I really don't want to further discuss this. I haven't studied the full details of the case, and it is not one I want to spend time studying.

As I said before, I don't want to get into the details. I haven't studied it, and I don't have the inclination to study it in detail.Your claim that "public use" was redefined seems wrong. The constitution does not define the term, and therefore this could not be a redefinition.Your characterization of this as liberal vs conservative is also wrong. Kennedy is a conservative, not a liberal. I'm not persuaded that there are any liberals on the court.

No liberals voted for it. There are no liberals on the supreme court. There are only moderates, conservatives and ideological extremists.

I put the blame on the city council (or whatever the body is called) of New London. They used poor judgement. I hope the people of New London throw them out at the next municipal election. In this case, that's where the proper outlet is for checks and balances.

That's a strawman argument. I can only feel sorry for you, that you are so confused as to think this a reasonable analogy. No, they didn't do that.

You have a nasty habit of describing everything in very biased terms.No, that is not what they decided. That's your interpretation of what will be the consequences of their decision.

No, it isn't. They were paid for the property. It was not just taken.Suppose there is a factory that is spewing pollution. Residents of nearby houses suffer serious health consequences. The state passes anti-pollution legislation requiring the factory to clean up its act. The factory owners sue, arguing that the legislation amount to taking their property (the rights to use their land as they please) for the benefit of the homeowners.You know, as well as I, that Scalia and Thomas are both congenial to this sort of argument.In Message 43, randman writes as if the majority justices were sitting down and discussing sneaky ways that a state could use to take property from average citizens. I'm saying that it was far more likely that they were trying to avoid setting bad precedents, and that their aim was to preserve to states the abilities that they need to reasonably protect the average citizen. I don't like what happened to the ordinary folk involved in this case. But we don't need major brain surgery to relieve the pain from a broken finger. Scalia, Thomas, Renquist were trying to set precedents that could badly cripple government.

I would not expect the published opinion to represent everything that was discussed. So we are left guessing.

Not a good analogy, unless you think wives are mere property. On that basis, I guess we should abandon government, because there will always be a few who are hurt.