I'm not familiar with Ursery and have only skimmed a few sources, but I saw nothing suggesting that the legality of civil forfeiture per se was even disputed in that case. If I read Stevens's dissent correctly, it challenges only the constitutionality of one of the involved criminal cases, arguing that because the previously seized property did not represent proceeds of a crime, the perpetrator had a legitimate property right of which the government had deprived him. Therefore, the forfeiture already served as a punishment for the crime, so double jeopardy precludes a subsequent criminal trial on the same offense.
I'd be interested in knowing if I'm missing something important here.
'Liberal' in the US is associated with the expansion of the welfare state, preferring having government solve all social problems, and abridging individual freedoms if the greater good is served.
You may be conflating liberal (those who agree with the political ideology) with liberal (used inaccurately to describe supporters of the Democratic Party), though I doubt you would find significant support for civil forfeiture among either group.