The Supreme Court case in question was decided in 2005, during which the following justices served on SCOTUS (followed by appointing President). Are your hated liberals really to blame for that decision? Or your greedy conservatives always looking for a way to give more money to the corporations or the state?
Roberts - GWB
Rehnquist - Nixon
Scallia - RR
Kennedy - RR
Thomas - GHWB
Ginsburg - Clinton
Breyer - Clinton
Stevens - Ford
O'Connor - RR
Souter - GHWB
Finding blame, or disagreement, is not hatred. And use of that word here has no place. Please do not apply YOUR value system to others.
The SCOTUS has gone a bit left, despite being apponted by both left and right Presidents. It is more liberal than ever. As the last bastion of the Constitution, which it's members swear to uphold in it's interpretations, it should be counted on to remain conservative.
In other words, not legislating from the bench. And certainly not changing the meaning of the original text and intent of the Document by which our nation's citizens are in Convenant to protect. And paramount, first, would be the rights of the individual, not the benefits of the State. Individual rights suffer from progressivism, be that GOP or Democrat. Both Teddy Roosevelt and Woodroow Wilson were Progressives.
The Fourth amendment, much like the second, has been eroded over time. By both parties. The SCOTUS was put in place to stop that. That annoying separation and balance of power thingy.
Perhaps one should do some research and see what has been wrought by recent SCOTUS moves to the left.
Supreme Court Determines What is "a Public Use"
Homes in a New London, Conn. neighborhood that stand to be torn down
after the city won its case before the U. S. Supreme Court
In June 2005, the Supreme Court decided an important case involving the meaning of "public use" in the Fifth Amendment. In Kelo v City of New London, the Court, voting 5 to 4, upheld a city plan to condemn homes in a 90-acre blue-collar residential neighborhood. New London plans to give the land to a developer for $1, with a 99-year lease, to build a waterfront hotel, office space, and higher-end housing. Justice Stevens, writing for the Court, found this donation of property to a developer to be a "public use." Stevens said that the Court's jurisprudence gave government "broad latitude" to determine what uses might be "public." In a concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy indicated that the Court still stood willing to review on constitutional grounds takings that are arguably simply the city favoring one private owner over another, rather than takings based on a good faith analysis of the public interest. Angry property rights advocates reacted to the decision by suggesting that local governments consider condemning the homes of justices in the majority and turning them over to private developers for construction of B & Bs.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/takings.htm