From the Ayn Rand Insitute:
In the current Senate debate over President Bush’s judicial nominees, some senators appear to be using a simple test: if a nominee has ever ruled in favor of property rights, he is unfit to serve as a federal judge.
The left has been preaching for many, many decades that so-called human rights trump property rights, that altruistic feelings for the weak, the poor, the handicapped, etc., ad nauseum, must guide a judge’s decisions, not some “outmoded” concept of justice based on the sanctity of the individual’s right to property. The senators worry that the nominees will reverse some of the massive violations of property rights that the left has subjected this country to for so long.
Consider one of Justice Janice Rogers Brown’s opinions that is thought objectionable. When the city of San Francisco forced hotel owners to pay a fee to convert from residential to tourist use, Justice Brown observed: “Private property, already an endangered species in California, is now entirely extinct in San Francisco…. Theft is theft even when the government approves of the thievery. Turning a democracy into a kleptocracy does not enhance the stature of the thieves; it only diminishes the legitimacy of the government.”
There are, however, legitimate reasons to oppose Bush’s nominees–not because of the rights a nominee promises to uphold but because of the rights he threatens to extinguish (such as the right to abortion)–as Bush strives to open another breach in the wall separating church and state.