Why do you think politically liberal justices voted against the rights of individual property owners in the Kelo v. City of New London case, while conservative justices voted against the government’s interests? I will give anyone that answers this 20 points!

Question:

Why do you think politically liberal justices voted against the rights of individual property owners in the Kelo v. City of New London case, while conservative justices voted against the government’s interests?

Explanation:

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of the eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The case arose in the context of condemnation by the city of New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property, so that it could be used as part of a "comprehensive redevelopment plan." After the Court's decision, the city allowed a private developer to proceed with its plans; however, the developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the project, and the contested land remained an undeveloped empty lot in 2019.

the dust bowl, otherwise known as the dirty thirties, was a huge dust storm that killed multiple (and i mean  multiple) farmer's crops, leaving them homeless, and foodless, and jobless. in california, there were 5.7 million residents, and the population shrank as mexicans were repatriated. however, when the dustbowl happened, a lot of people began to move to california. by 1940, 250,000 people had arrived. therefore, your answer would be  the population increased, massively.  i hope this !

explanation:

i believe it d) heterogeneous