N.H. Town Rejects Plan to Evict Souter

[Judi Lynn]

N.H. Town Rejects Plan to Evict Souter
By KATHY McCORMACK, Associated Press Writer

Saturday, February 4, 2006

(02-04) 14:48 PST Weare, N.H. (AP) --

Residents on Saturday rejected a proposal to evict U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter from his farmhouse to make way for the "Lost Liberty Hotel."

A group angered by last year's court decision that gave local governments more power to seize people's homes for economic development had petitioned to use the ruling against the justice.

But voters deciding which issues should go on the town's March ballot replaced the group's proposal with a call to strengthen New Hampshire's law on eminent domain.

"This is a game," said Walter Bohlin. "Why would we take something from one of ours? This is not the appropriate way."
(snip/...)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/02/04/national/a144841S59.DTL

[tularetom]

1. I like Souter and I know the people behind this are wingnuts

but still I was sorta hoping that this thing would go through. To me this is almost as bad as warrantless spying on US citizens when the government can take your property and give it to wally world just because they'll make more tax $ from it.

[Ian David]

2. I say we claim the Crawford Pig Farm and make it an open-pit quarry. n/t

[Mz Pip]

5. That would work

but a Wal_mart would be poetic justice IMHO.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Poppyseedman]

3. Souter should be horse whipped for voting for Kelo

Private property rights are one of the fundamental principles of freedom. All other rights are built upon that principle, otherwise we are just slaves to the state and their minions who buy influence. Enough of our government is bought and sold already.

I don't want his property taken, but it ought to make him think real hard, that it could have.

I wonder if it was some poor person who property was up for grabs, would it have been defeated?

[Mz Pip]

4. This seems to be something

both the left and right agree on. This was a bad decision by the SCOTUS.

I like Souter and am glad he gets to keep his house. I do wonder how he felt about the prospect of having it yanked from him so a hotel could be built. Did he ever comment on it?

Mz Pip
:dem:

[jfxgillis]

7. Souter was probably

L.ing his a. off.

Did this Joshua Soloman idiot breeze in from Southern fucking California thinking he could buffalo a New Hampshire Town Meeting the way Sean Hannity bullies a Dem radio caller? Personally, I knew this a dead-bang loser the minute the idiot first proposed it months ago.

"It's not exactly the message we intended to have," quoth the nincompoop.

Even better, the Town Meeting struck PRECISELY the proper note by encouraging PRECISELY the method Souter and the Court provided for overturning the result.

[USA_1]

6. IT PAYS TO BE A REPUBLICAN!!!

[Nutmegger]

8. I sympathize with them

The outcome in Kelo was an outrage!

We should pour all of our efforts into getting state legislation passed. Maybe it'll be a wake up call if enough states enact anti-ED legislation.

[Bluerthanblue]

9. If anyone took the time to actually read

the SCOTUS decision on Kelo, that is EXACTLY what the justices recommend- And encourage.
You want to know who the real 'abusers' were on this case?? The governing body- INCLUDING the neighbors of the very people who were forced out of their homes,- and the state of Connecticut.

Had THEY not pushed and pushed for taking the homes of their own neighbors, and sought to lower their own 'taxes'- there would have been NO CASE before the SCOTUS- States rights are what trumped this case-

BTW I live within 200miles of Souters home, know the Building Inspector of the town of Weare (a good guy), and believe this Darrow shit to be nothing more than a publicity stunt, and money making scheme on the part of this man, who gives even the best of 'libertarians' a bad name-

Shame on the state of Connecticut, and the citizens of New London, who sold out their own people- without shame, or the willingness to accept the blame for what they CHOSE to do- It should have stopped with the local governing bodies. It didn't-

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Nobody read it.

We all accepted the rightwing framing of this carefully chosen test case. I had it explained to me in great detail by somebody here on DU when it first happened. Whoever that was, thanks again for setting me straight. The people of New Haven and the State of Connecticut can continue to decide rightly or wrongly how to use their power to take property for the public good.

The court rightly decided to stay out of it.

Try reading the decision before siding with rightwing extremists:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html

The good people of Weare refused to be used and abused by rightwing extremists. Good for them.

[CTLawGuy]

11. I have read the decision for my Property Law class

It reflects the VERY broad deference the Supreme Court has given to states and towns in taking property. As long as the purpose is "public" (pretty much anything) and it is not arbitrarily targeting anyone, it will be allowed.

Previously the Supreme Court had allowed takings to increase the number of landowners in Hawaii (something like 27 landowners had owned 80% of the land in HI). The goverment would condemn leased property and then sell it to the tenant who lived there. Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff.

It also allowed eminent domain to condemn a blighted area of DC. Berman v. Parker.



Yes, Eminent domain is a state decision, but this is still a terrible decision because of the obvious possibility of corruption and abuse when almost any contrived justification will be accepted. The Supreme Court should have taken the "public use" clause more seriously.

Justice Thomas said that the majority in Kelo essentially rendered the "public use" clause meaningless, and Constitutional construction says that all words in the Constitution have meaning. I agree with him (scary).

[Bluerthanblue]

12. Do you really think that the 'public park' in Kelo

was there as the 'benevolent' sham I believe it was? And the notion of restoring "Fort Trumbull" a historical site??

All SCOTUS decisions are equally vunerable to corruption and abuse. If Connecticut was smart enough -no, IF the State cared more about their own individual citizens as they did about money, this case NEVER would have been brought, it would have had no grounds for ever being brought.

We can't expect the Supreme Court to do what we as individuals within out coummunities, refuse to guard against. It was indeed a 'terrible decision' but also one that should never have made it to the court- SHAME on the Govt of Connecticut, and the planning boards of New London, and the very neighbors and 'friends' of Kelo, and the others who were 'sold out' by their very own.

The 'majority' decision, and the court brief, states pretty clearly that the Justices' didn't rule as they did without disgust, and in the clearest and most direct language possible they ADVISE all states to put legislation into place which would keep a case such as this from ever making it to the highest court.

The Kelo minority in New London, were sold out by their very own people- I would be so ashamed to have not petitioned my state to NEVER do that to it's own residents.

Justice Thomas forgets that this was not the first time that 'public use' was abused by 'corporate' and 'greedy' plaintifs. Nor was it the first decision to usurp the rights of a homeowner to be protected from having their homes taken for less than 'needful' reasons. I believe the uproar was a political ruse- and the anger and 'retribution' should begin with the 'city planners' homes in New London Connecticut.- Not with the 'messengers'.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.