It wouldn't be fair to say that conservatives cherish property the way liberals cherish equality. But it would be fair to say that the takings clause is the conservatives' recipe for judicial activism just as they say liberals have misused the equal protection clause.

In this quote, Michael Kinsley, a prominent American journalist and commentator, reflects on the contrasting ways in which conservatives and liberals interpret and use constitutional principles. Kinsley points out that while conservatives are often seen as deeply invested in the protection of property rights, liberals are more focused on equality. He suggests that conservatives, while not necessarily cherishing property in the same way liberals cherish equality, use the takings clause of the Constitution to advance their own agenda, which he sees as a form of judicial activism. This stands in contrast to how liberals are often accused of misusing the equal protection clause to promote social reforms.

The takings clause, found in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, is often invoked by conservatives to argue that the government should not seize private property without just compensation. In Kinsley’s view, conservatives use this clause to push for judicial decisions that favor property rights, even when these decisions might lead to broader, sometimes controversial, changes in government policy or interpretation. He likens this to judicial activism, a term that refers to the courts’ involvement in making policy decisions, which conservatives often criticize liberals for doing with the equal protection clause—a provision used to challenge laws that might discriminate against individuals or groups based on factors like race or gender.

Kinsley’s quote also highlights a political divide in how constitutional clauses are viewed and used. Conservatives and liberals often accuse each other of using judicial interpretation to achieve their political goals, despite their differing ideological focuses. Kinsley’s reference to the equal protection clause points to how liberals have historically used it to advocate for civil rights, including efforts to desegregate schools and protect the rights of women and minorities. In contrast, conservatives are seen as using the takings clause to assert property rights and limit the reach of government intervention.

Ultimately, Kinsley’s quote sheds light on the strategic ways in which both liberals and conservatives use constitutional language to further their political aims, often accusing the other side of judicial activism when their interpretations don’t align with their own beliefs. The statement serves as a reminder of the ideological battles over the interpretation of the Constitution and how different political groups use its clauses to either expand or limit government power.