Investors try to use Justice Souter's ruling to take his house

[emzie]

Press Release

For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

While it's not a prank, I find it quite funny. I hope they get it.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Souter I think was the one who wrote the majority opinion in that case.

He's a good guy, though. Definately my favorite SCJ.

 

[emzie]

He's a good guy, though.

Maybe, but I detest his decision. I find it a sad day when I agree with Scalia

 

[Yom]

Sweet, sweet irony.

 

[eyrei]

Wouldn't it be funny if they succeeded in forcing him out of his home...

 

[Sims2789]

This is hilarious! I hope they seize his land and then after he dies I hope the ruling is overturned. Not because I support the libertarians, but because I dislike the land-throne-altar axis of the Right Wing even more. Although private property rights aren't as big of a priority to me as free speach, giving one person or group's private property to another will just lead to seizures of massive amounts of land by whichever corporations happen to have influence in the government at the time.

 

[Akka]

Same here. May he be the first to have his own medecine applied to him.

 

[blackheart]

This is hilarious! I hope they seize his land and then after he dies I hope the ruling is overturned. Not because I support the libertarians, but because I dislike the land-throne-altar axis of the Right Wing even more.

Uhm... the left wing supported this one, kind of odd isn't it?

 

[IglooDame]

Man, I love living in this state.

Now to figure out how I can donate to the cause.

 

[JtheJackal]

Uhm... the left wing supported this one, kind of odd isn't it?

I still haven't gotten over that fact

 

[Sims2789]

Uhm... the left wing supported this one, kind of odd isn't it?

How so? Souter was appointed by the first Bush.

 

[samildanach]

Reminds me of a story about a German Prince or Emperor who had the view from his palace spoiled by a windmill being erected after he implemented some reform or other.

The German Prince uttered the word D'aahhhh! to express his dismay and for those interested in etymology the American word D'oh! owes its existence to him.
Actually I made that up. The German guy was apparently a very enlightened ruler.

 

[IglooDame]

How so? Souter was appointed by the first Bush.

Souter is the least liberal of the five that upheld the eminent domain case, and each of the four that opposed it (Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor, and Rehnquist) are considered equal or to the right of Souter (looking at voting record rather than who appointed them), so in this case at least you can blame the liberal justices.

 

[DBear]

How so? Souter was appointed by the first Bush.

Souter was not the first choice, nor even the second. Either of those choices would've upheld the constitution. You liberals have no one to blame but yourselves.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Souter is often used as an example of how unpredicable a Supreme Court appointment can be. He was appointed to consolidate the conservative majority -- but then he turned into one of the court's foremost liberals.

 

[Keirador]

How so? Souter was appointed by the first Bush.

Seven of the current SCJs were appointed by Ford, Bush or Reagan. Doesn't mean they're all conservative. At some points, a conservative President was forced to appoint a liberal Justice because it was all a liberal Senate would confirm. That's what the seperation of powers is for, after all.

Sorry Sims, but the liberals were resonsible for this travesty of justice. Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia, the most conservative members of the court, were against it, joined by more moderate Justice O'Connor. Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the minority, explained that

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Decidedly liberal Justices Souter, Breyer, Ginburg, and Stevens decided that the government could basically take your land whenever it wanted. Kennedy, a swing-voting moderate like Sandra Day O'Connor, joined the liberals, but wrote a seperate opinion that allowed for a narrower definition of governmental power than the one penned by Stevens for the majority.

 

[BasketCase]

If eminent domain did get overturned, then Evil Corporations would be able to buy whatever land they wanted, and nobody would be able to stop them. Anti-corporation folks have, in fact, been making this precise argument for decades; that corporations were screwing everything up, and the government should have the power to stop them.

You really can't stop them. Evolution dictates that those who adapt, survive. The corporations we have today are simply composed of those people who know how to adapt economically.

Raise taxes on corporations? Impose environmental laws? Impose ethnic fairness laws? Impose steep fines for violating this or that? They've all been tried, and corporations have beaten them all.

 

[Elrohir]

I think this is poetic justice. They should do this to all the judges that voted for that outrageous decision. That would just be perfect.

 

[BasketCase]

The judges will overturn the decision to bulldoze their own houses. They win.

 

[Keirador]

I think this is poetic justice. They should do this to all the judges that voted for that outrageous decision. That would just be perfect.

Clements is quoted as ominously remarking that if this hotel/museum is succesful, he might be interested in founding a chain.