I fall somewhere between Ramesh and Rod on this. But I don’t see any downside whatsoever in George W. Bush going before the cameras and delivering a sober but stern denunciation of this ruling. The principles are obvious. On the political front, it sets the stage for nomination battles to come in a new and helpful way. Home-owners hitch many of their political views to the set of interests revolving around their homes, and for good reason. Moreover, home-ownership is at an all time high, including black home ownership, which means there are large numbers of middle and lower-middle income voters who are in a moment of political transition where they see their interests in a new light. Why shouldn’t Bush go out there and say we need judges who appreciate that property rights are just as valuable as any other right, that the state shouldn’t be able to seize your home to reward political contributors? He already has a lot of talking points about how owning a home is the ticket to the American dream.

This may not be a huge deal politically, but it could be a useful teaching moment where conservatives can frame the battle over the Supreme Court in terms other than abortion and civil rights.