Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: FortRumbull

2 down. 3 to go.


13 posted on 08/14/2005 2:46:06 PM PDT by zendari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: zendari

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.


15 posted on 08/15/2005 12:48:23 PM PDT by JewishRighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: zendari

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


16 posted on 08/15/2005 8:21:25 PM PDT by mlorrey ("there is no taking for private use that wouldn't have a public benefit " - Justice Breyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson