Posted on 08/13/2005 2:32:19 PM PDT by FortRumbull
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Libertarian Party chief wants public to decide in March
The effort to seize the vacation home of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is moving ahead toward the goal of a public vote in March.
That according to John Babiarz, chairman of the New Hampshire's Libertarian Party, who appeared tonight on the Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" program.
We have every intention of doing the proper petitioning and have the people of Plainfield make the decision," Babiarz said. "We're in the petition-gathering stage right now."
Babiarz, a 2002 candidate for governor in the Granite State, stressed the seriousness of the issue in the wake of the high court's recent ruling on eminent domain, giving governments the power to transfer private property from one private party to another. The decision ignited a firestorm of outrage across the political spectrum.
"Property rights are very important," said Babiarz, who would like Breyer's land to become a public park. "It's got to go from talk to action. ... I think the justices don't realize the impact [of their decision]."
Justice Breyer, who owns 167 acres in the Connecticut River Valley in Plainfield, N.H., is the second Supreme Court justice to be targeted for property seizure.
Justice David Souter's home is also in the crosshairs of a California entrepreneur who's looking to build the "Lost Liberty Hotel" on Souter's land in the town of Weare, N.H.
As WND exclusively reported this week, Breyer made news beyond eminent domain by saying not all rulings from America's highest court are correct, admitting judges don't have "some great special insight," and he defended the practice of studying courts in foreign countries to help decide cases in the United States.
That would be soooooo sweet.
"...the long, winding driveway to Breyer's 4,964-square-foot log house... 167-acre...According to town records, the Breyer property is assessed at $617,300. Thanks to a current-use credit on the land surrounding the house, Breyer pays property taxes on $199,003 of the total value."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1453861/posts
As I noted on that earlier thread, I'm a NH resident who has to pay at a higher effective assessment on my modest 1,600 sq ft detached condo, no land, than Breyer does for a ~5000 sq ft house and 167 acres!
Gotta hope they keep up the good work.
Take it, burn it to the ground, and build a monument to property rights.
God bless them. I hope they get the support from the local community. If just one property can actually be taken maybe the justices will begin to get off of MT. Olympus.
I believe the technical term for that is a Limousine Liberal.
Heh. Heh. Heh.
This is precisely the sentiments of all of the 5 Weare, NH selectmen & women, which is why Souter's home is safe. I feel that the 5 SCOTUS justices who voted for this nonsense deserve far worse than merely having their homes seized. They are simply Communists and pose a grave danger to our liberties. But I would ask the following questions:
1) If C rules it is OK to take from A to give to B, should A give C a pass and let him be, or should A not turn the other cheek, but instead try to take C's home to punish him?
2) If it was your own home being seized, would you be quite so forgiving?
3) Has the effort to seize Souter's and Breyer's homes gotten their attention and perhaps illustrated to them the error of their ways?
If somebody slapped me once, I might or might not let it go. But if they kept on doing it, I would haul off and clobber them after a few slaps. This crew just slapped all Americans right between the eyes, about as hard as they could. While I can appreciate those who would urge restraint, I can not condone this sort of pacifism. They just stole people's homes from them. They are simply thieves in black robes, deserving of the strongest punishment. I will repeat: simply taking their homes from them is far less than they deserve.
A crime has been committed here. There is no pretty way to deal with it, and these 5 should be made examples of in the firmest possible manner. If they do not believe we should have property rights, how are we then supposed to reaffirm these same rights to those who would deny them to us? Your logic, taken into the criminal courts, would force us to release criminals using the following reasoning: just because someone stole my car, it is not right to then lock him up and deprive him of his liberty. Wake up, a crime has been committed here. Criminals must be punished for the safety of society as a whole. How many homes have to be seized before those who are actively participating in the seizing must be punished for the sake of the freedom of the rest of us?
Justice Breyer:
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US.
Sic 'em!
2 down. 3 to go.
I believe the motto above the entrance to the Supreme Court says: "Equal Justice Under the Law"
Hopefully these good folks are going to make that motto very real for mssrs Souter and Breyer (commie pinkos).
Another thought just came to me: imagine if these legal efforts gain momentum and Souter and Breyer have to hire lawyers and mount a legal challenge to the takings. That would be so awesome: Local State judge to Souter's attorney: Didn't your client vote with the majority in the New London case that this was a perfectly acceptable public use of private property?
Souter's Attorney: humina humina humina... Well, yes, but, er, don't you see, this is different, I mean we are talking about Mr. Justice Souter's dacha-oops I mean home.
My sentiments exactly, zendari. I am disappointed to see no other property rights groups going after other Supremes property. Kennedy has property in Sacramento, Stevens has some in Ill. (either Springfield or the Chicagoland area), and Ginsberg has property near NYC or Albany. Breyer, btw, also has his main residence in Cambridge, MA. All of the Kelo Five have property in the DC area as well. I challenge property rights proponents to follow our lead here in NH and make this a nationwide grassroots revolt against judicial tyranny.
Mike Lorrey
V-C, 2nd Dist, LP of NH
I see no moral difference between what you are proposing and what Senator Kennedy did to Judge Bork, what Anita Hill tried to do to Judge Thomas and what MoveOn.Org tried to do to President Bush. Calling justices who made a decision you and I do not agree with criminals is beyond the pale.
What planet do you live on? Here in the Real World, when justices pervert the PLAIN MEANING of the Constitution, we refer to such individuals as CRIMINALS, in a state of insurrection against the common liberty. They deserve none of the freedoms they would deny others. For your edification, you should really review Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, to learn precisely which statute the Gang of Five violated.
Now you are comparing Supreme Court Justices to Hitler. You are no better than the likes of Michael Moore on the other side. I will fight against extremists on both sides.
Get a life. You are twisting my words. I said Hitler, Stalin & Mao (and I will add Saddam Hussein) all operated under cover of bogus laws. Using your "logic," if SCOTUS ruled that there is a constitutional right to execute anyone making over $100,000 a year, that would make it legal in your eyes. And anyone who urged suitable punishments for any justices who advocated such nonsense, would be an "extremist." Good thing a whole bunch of "extremists" would not sit still for the Stamp Act in 1765. If they hadn't, we would never have gotten a Bill of Rights to argue over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.