The Boumediene v. Bush decision by five liberal judges, Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer granting enemy combatants harbeus corpus was met with obvious glee from the left. The conservatives were understandably pissed off. Here is one possible explanation for the conservative reaction. Back in 2005, same five liberal judges Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer decided that the government has a right to take your property "to promote welfare" - i.e. basically, if the government likes it, it can take and pay you whatever it thinks it okay (see Kelo vs City of New London). In other words, same liberal judges grant more rights to terrorists, while fucking up the rights of law abiding Americans. Now, I wonder, why wouldn't this piss off the liberals? Could someone explain?