Posted on 01/22/2006 8:04:54 AM PST by FerdieMurphy
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- Angered by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that sided with a Connecticut city that wanted to seize homes for economic development, a group of activists is trying to get one of the justices who voted for the decision evicted from his own home. The group, led by a California man, wants Justice David Souter's home seized for the purpose of building an inn called "Lost Liberty Hotel."
They submitted enough petition signatures - only 25 were needed - to bring the matter before voters in March. This weekend, they're descending on Souter's hometown, the central New Hampshire town of Weare, population 8,500, to rally for support.
"This is in the tradition of the Boston Tea Party and the Pine Tree Riot," organizer Logan Darrow Clements said, referring to the riot that took place during the winter of 1771-1772, when colonists in Weare beat up officials appointed by King George III who fined them for logging white pines without approval. "All we're trying to do is put an end to eminent domain abuse," Clements said, by having those who advocate or facilitate it "live under it, so they understand why it needs to end."
Bill Quigley, Weare deputy police chief, said if protesters show up, they're going to be told to stay across the street from a dirt road that leads to Souter's brown farmhouse, which is more than 200 years old. It isn't known if Souter will be home.
"They're obviously not going to be allowed on Justice Souter's property," he said. "There's no reason for anybody to go down that road unless they live on that road, and we know the residents that live there. The last time (Clements) showed up, they had a total of about three or four people who showed up to listen to him."
Clements, of Los Angeles, said he's never tried to contact Souter.
"The justice doesn't have any comment about it," Kathy Arberg, a Supreme Court spokeswoman, said about the protesters' cause.
The petition asks whether the town should take Souter's land for development as an inn; whether to set up a trust fund to accept donations for legal expenses; and whether to set up a second trust fund to accept donations to compensate Souter for taking his land.
The matter goes to voters on March 14.
Clements said participants planned to meet at Weare Town Hall on Saturday morning and divide into teams to go door-to-door to get more petition signatures. He also wants to distribute copies of the Supreme Court's decision, Kelo vs. City of New London, to residents.
The court said New London, Conn., could seize homeowners' property to develop a hotel, convention center, office space and condominiums next to Pfizer Inc.'s new research headquarters.
The city argued that tax revenues and new jobs from the development would benefit the public. The Pfizer complex was built, but seven homeowners challenged the rest of the development in court. The Supreme Court's ruling against them prompted many states, including New Hampshire, to examine their eminent domain laws.
State Rep. Neal Kurk, a Weare resident who is sponsoring two pieces of eminent domain legislation in New Hampshire, said he expects the group's proposal to be defeated overwhelmingly.
"Most people here see this as an act of revenge and an improper attack on the judicial system," Kurk said. "You don't go after a judge personally because you disagree with his judgments."
Souter doesn't want his ancestral home destroyed as then the bodies buried in the basement will be discovered.
Besides he wanted to open a gourmet restaurant: The Dahmer Inn.
Souter is a weird duck.
I also hope they succeed. That guy is not all there.
Is that right? They didn't go after Clarence Thomas' home, but they sure went after him
Judges are accountable to no one, and we see where that has gotten us.
On March 14, it's bye-bye Souter.
Who is the head chef there?
It would be even more fun if they wanted to replace his home with a Wal-Mart.
With pitchforks in hand, the rabble will topple Dr. Frankenstein, who birthed a monster.
I actually hope this whole thing is entirely successful and the judicial oligarchy which seems to rule this country is forced to fight back. I hate for things to get ugly, but maybe that's the way it has to be.
Souter stands to make big money and the township stands to own a haunted hotel. Great strategy. Nobody but the ghost on Douglas "I'm pro choice and I like to change my name" Clements will occupy this backwoods pipe dream. What a joke! Can't believe that some take Clements seriously.
No, you start by burning him in effigy, on his front lawn. Tyrants have it way too easy these days.
No?
Well how about going after him to teach him an object lesson in the application of his own whacko rulings?
Since when?
Seizing the Honorable Justice's long-time home is just a reality check on how all the small guys feels when runover by unnecessary eminant domain. The Supreme Court is totally out of touch with reality, as when they approved the use of the schweigenhalten for the ordinary drivers, while they are seemlessly chauffered into the parking lot basement of the Supreme Court headquarters with nary a delay or intrusion.
I whole-heartedly agree. Souter, in his myopic, Orwellian vision, should lose his house as a direct consequence of his "legislation" from the bench.
That's alright. I can read it over and over again.
Exactly.
Incorrect, this is exactly what we should be doing. Judges like Souter are proof that they live above their rulings and to give him a tatse of the injustice of his own works is fitting. I wish him removed from the bench along with Ginsberg, but who am I? They are the most powerful people in the country, routinely trumping the will of the people as properly vested in the elected officials of the Legislative and the Executive branches.
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.