« New WTC Freedom Tower Unveiled | Main | Jessica Simpson is Hot! Hot! Hot! »
June 29, 2005
Justice Souter Gets a Dose of His Own Medicine
U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter, one of the five who checked their brains at the door, planted their heads firmly in their asses and promptly went about the task of declaring that none of us have any property rights if the government doesn't want us to, got a dose of his own medicine today:
WEARE, N.H. --Following a Supreme Court ruling last week that gave local governments power to seize private property, someone has suggested taking over Justice David Souter's New Hampshire farmhouse and turning it into a hotel."The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare," Logan Darrow Clements of California wrote in a letter faxed to town officials in Weare on Tuesday.
Souter, a longtime Weare resident, joined in the 5-4 court decision allowing governments to seize private property from one owner and turn it over to another if doing so would benefit a community.
The letter dubbing the project the "Lost Liberty Hotel" was posted on conservative radio show host Rush Limbaugh's Web site. Clements said it would include a dining room called the "Just Desserts Cafe" an a museum focused on the "loss of freedom in America."
This apparently serious attempt to add value to Souter's property (for the benefit of the township of course) is being taken seriously by the town council:
The letter was passed along to the board of selectmen. If the five-member board were to endorse the hotel project, zoning laws would have to be changed and the hotel would have to get approval from the planning board.
"At this point, the Board of Selectmen are taking no action," said Laura Buono, board chairwoman. The board met Tuesday night."Am I taking this seriously? But of course," said Charles Meany, Weare's code enforcement officer. "In lieu of the recent Supreme Court decision, I would imagine that some people are pretty much upset. If it is their right to pursue this type of end, then by all means let the process begin."
"I have to offer him the luxury of due process," Meany said Wednesday, adding that he planned to tell Clements that "he has started the process backwards." Meany said he will tell Clements he first must petition the selectmen, next the planning board, then the zoning board before "he comes to me for a building permit."
As well it should. It's only fitting that at least one Supreme Court justice's house be razed in the name of erecting a museum that documents the erosion of our rights. Should this hotel actually be built, I'll be taking a vacation to New Hampshire. I want to be one of the first to stay there. To say this is poetic justice is the understatement of the year.
Souter is quite accustomed to sitting in his seat on the high court and making and participating in decisions -- particularly idiotic ones like this eminent domain one and the Ten Commandments one for which he wrote the majority opinion -- without having to suffer the consequences of them. As Bob Dylan would say: "How does it feel", Dave? I'm just wondering: If this one goes all the way to the Supreme Court, will Souter do the right thing and recuse himself?
Source: Boston.com
Posted by Steve at June 29, 2005 06:57 PM
Copyright © 2007 by author. May not be copied, published, or otherwise used (except for brief quotes) without express permission of author. Articles published with permission by Pardon My English.
-->Comments
That would truly be the ultimate irony.
Posted by Androminos at June 29, 2005 08:42 PM
I sent the following email today to the Selectmen in Weare, NH:
Board of Selectmen Weare, New Hampshire
Dear Selectmen:
My wife and I would like to book a suite in the "Lost Liberty Hotel" on the former farm of Chief Justice Souter for opening night.
If still available, we would like to stay in the "Justice Souter Be Careful What You Wish for Suite" on the top floor.
If that should be already booked, then please give us a suite with a balcony overlooking the splendid views of the former Souter property.
Also please reserve dinner for us at the "Just Desserts Cafe."
Let us know which credit cards you accept. We would like to do our part in bringing economic prosperity to your town.
Looking forward to getting out of the city,
Lyle Jenkins 103 River St., #3 Cambridge, MA 02139 617-492-5511 ljenkins2@comcast.net
Posted by Lyle Jenkins at June 29, 2005 11:56 PM
Yes, Andy -- it would be truly hilarious. We can only hope.
Posted by Steve ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.pardonmyenglish.com//nav-commenters.gif)
at June 30, 2005 05:29 AM
What the heck were they thinking on this one?
Posted by Androminos at June 30, 2005 08:15 AM
Where's Weare? Local joke. Since Weare is pronounced "ware," people naturally ask, "Where's Weare." Actually Weare is only two towns away from me. I'll have to say something to some of the folk who I work with that reside in Weare. Good stuff here.
Posted by Johnny New Englander at June 30, 2005 08:27 AM
It seems this issue is one we can all agree on. What were they thinking?
Posted by Lisa at June 30, 2005 10:14 AM
Johnny:
If they are anything like the people in Middleton, where I have my place, anything could happen.
Bill
Posted by Little Bill at June 30, 2005 02:31 PM
Q: "Later this morning, many Members of the House Republican leadership, along with John Cornyn from the Senate, are holding a news conference on eminent domain, the decision of the Supreme Court the other day, and they are going to offer legislation that would restrict it, prohibiting federal funds from being used in such a manner.
Two questions: What was your reaction to the Supreme Court decision on this topic, and what do you think about legislation to, in the minds of opponents at least, remedy or changing it?"
Ms. Pelosi: "As a Member of Congress, and actually all of us and anyone who holds a public office in our country, we take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Very central to that in that Constitution is the separation of powers. I believe that whatever you think about a particular decision of the Supreme Court, and I certainly have been in disagreement with them on many occasions, it is not appropriate for the Congress to say we're going to withhold funds for the Court because we don't like a decision."
Q: "Not on the Court, withhold funds from the eminent domain purchases that wouldn't involve public use. I apologize if I framed the question poorly. It wouldn't be withholding federal funds from the Court, but withhold Federal funds from eminent domain type purchases that are not just involved in public good."
Ms. Pelosi: "Again, without focusing on the actual decision, just to say that when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church -- powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that as well. But forgive my digression.
So the answer to your question is, I would oppose any legislation that says we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court no matter how opposed I am to that decision. And I'm not saying that I'm opposed to this decision, I'm just saying in general."
Bwahahaha.
Posted by MJohnson at July 1, 2005 09:51 AM
Note: Comments once posted become the property of Pardon My English. We therefore reserve the right to make use of such in any manner and for whatever purpose we deem appropriate. Please refer to comment policy for further information.
