Meaning: This quote by Michael Kinsley, a prominent journalist, delves into the differing perspectives of conservatives and liberals on the role of the government in protecting property rights and promoting equality. Kinsley's quote touches upon two important legal concepts in the United States: the takings clause and the equal protection clause, which are rooted in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, respectively.

The first part of the quote suggests that conservatives do not necessarily hold property rights in the same regard as liberals value equality. This juxtaposition highlights the fundamental ideological differences between conservatives and liberals when it comes to the role of government in society. Conservatives often prioritize individual property rights and limited government intervention in the economy, whereas liberals tend to emphasize social equality and advocate for government intervention to address social and economic disparities.

Kinsley then draws attention to the takings clause as the conservatives' "recipe for judicial activism." The takings clause, found in the Fifth Amendment, prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. This clause has been the subject of debate and litigation, particularly in cases involving government regulations that impact property rights. Kinsley's assertion that the takings clause serves as a vehicle for conservative judicial activism suggests that conservatives may use this legal principle to challenge government regulations and assert property rights.

On the other hand, Kinsley posits that conservatives accuse liberals of misusing the equal protection clause. The equal protection clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment, mandates that states must provide equal protection of the laws to all individuals within their jurisdictions. This clause has been central to landmark civil rights cases and has been invoked to challenge discriminatory laws and practices. Kinsley's comparison implies that conservatives view liberal interpretations of the equal protection clause as overreaching or activist in nature.

In essence, Kinsley's quote encapsulates the ideological and legal differences between conservatives and liberals regarding property rights and equality. It sheds light on the divergent approaches to constitutional interpretation and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding individual rights and promoting social justice.

Kinsley's perspective reflects the ongoing debates and tensions surrounding constitutional law and the balancing of individual rights with societal interests. The quote also underscores the significance of legal principles such as the takings clause and the equal protection clause in shaping public policy and influencing judicial decisions.

In conclusion, Michael Kinsley's quote provides a thought-provoking insight into the contrasting viewpoints of conservatives and liberals on property rights and equality, as well as their respective attitudes towards constitutional clauses such as the takings clause and the equal protection clause. It serves as a reminder of the complex interplay between ideology, law, and governance in the United States.