California Senator Diane Feinstein has been quoted as saying that the pending Senate confirmation hearings for Judge John Roberts were a “big big deal.” Feinstein worries that the Roberts nomination could move the court in a very conservative direction and announced her intention to press the judge on his views on abortion. Frankly, I am less interested in whether a justice is pro abortion or pro life than I am in whether they will faithfully interpret the Constitution of the United States. I certainly expect the issue of abortion rights to surface, but a far better measure of Roberts’ jurisprudence would be his thoughts on Kelo vs. City of New London.

You will recall in June the Supreme Court by a 5-4 majority allowed the city of New London, Connecticut to use eminent domain – the power of government to seize private property -- to confiscate homes in a working-class neighborhood and turn them over to a private developer. These homes will be destroyed and replaced by a health-club, parking lot and marina to support a neighboring pharmaceutical company.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution limits governments exercise of its eminent domain power to the“public use” and only when the owner receives “just” compensation. Traditionally, public use has meant highways, schools, hospitals or some other public facility. Over the years however, the courts have increasingly read the public use clause to mean public “benefit.” New London was therefore able to argue that the confiscation was justified because the public would benefit through the new jobs and increased tax revenue development would provide.

Joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor issued a harsh dissent. "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." And by extension, those crushed under the weight of this new found public right to transfer private property to developers will be poor and minority communities.

The right to private property is one of the principles upon which our nation was founded. More importantly, it is crucial to the generation of wealth. The poor are able to build wealth through ownership of assets and property. In fact, the average person develops more wealth through home ownership than they do through the stock market. Next to a job, private property is perhaps the most important thing in a family’s life. The right to property is also the gateway to all other rights. The principle of private property does not simply mean a home or land. The right to property means everyman owns the fruit of his labor, owns his ideas, his conscience-- he owns himself. At the heart of the master slave relationship is the notion that some have the right to confiscate the property of others and give it to whomever they choose. Once government begins to infringe on our private property rights, you can be sure the rights to free speech and liberty are next. The nomination of Judge Roberts is a big deal. However, we must not follow the sleight of hand of making this nomination about abortion. Without the right to property, all other rights are meaningless.

The question Judge Roberts most needs to answer is: is our private property truly private or was the court correct in Kelo? All of us need to listen very closely to his response. As far as I am concerned any judge -- conservative or liberal -- who answers incorrectly is not fit to sit the bench in traffic court much less the bench of the United States Supreme Court.