Michael Kinsley, an iconoclastic voice in American journalism, has fearlessly challenged conventional wisdom and scrutinized political discourse with incisive wit and intellectual rigor. From his groundbreaking editorship to his insightful commentary, Kinsley's contributions have invigorated public debate and reaffirmed the vital role of a free press in holding power to account and safeguarding democratic values.

"He hasn't said whether he remembers the episode itself - or, if he doesn't, whether that is because it never happened or because it happened too often to keep track. More important, he hasn't said what he thinks about it all from the perspective of 2003."



"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 those days, the late 1970s, one of the leading politicians was a soon-to-be uncle by marriage of Arnold Schwarzenegger, named Ted Kennedy."



"The "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment is for conservatives what the equal protection clause of the 14th is for liberals."



"A Supreme Court decision that concessions of this sort were unconstitutional would have taken them off the table and actually increased the effective sovereignty of elected officials."



"In any event, the proper question isn't what a journalist thinks is relevant but what his or her audience thinks is relevant. Denying people information they would find useful because you think they shouldn't find it useful is censorship, not journalism."



"They can't take your house and give it to the mayor's mistress, even if they pay you for it. But they can, apparently, take your house and tear it down to make room for a development of trendy shops and restaurants, a hotel and so on."



"So the danger of conservative judicial activism has been averted for another year. Stay tuned."



"The case decided on Thursday, though, seemed promising to takings fans because it wasn't about compensation. It was about the requirement that any government taking must have a "public purpose.""



"Almost any government activity can also be seen as taking property "without just compensation." The basic model of an unconstitutional "taking" would be if the government threw you out of your house."

