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?