Just doing his job (SCOTUS Judge Souter)

[kskiska]

There's something perversely misguided about a fringe group of property-rights activists who showed up in Supreme Court Justice David Souter's New Hampshire hometown over the weekend.

They seem to believe that stomping all over Souter's rights to his 200-year-old farmhouse will somehow enhance their own. In reality, these protesters are just bullies who understand nothing about judicial independence.

(snip)

The justices did not say that the project was a good idea. Nor did they say that all use of eminent domain power for economic development should be allowed, no matter the circumstances. In fact, the court said that states could, if they chose, adopt stiffer restrictions than those in the Constitution to protect private property from government takings.

(snip)

Good for them for engaging in the political process. But they're sniping at the wrong target.

(snip)

Those who want to change the laws that local and state officials create and enforce should appeal to those entrusted with that power -- elected representatives -- and stop threatening judges with harassment and personal loss for just doing their jobs.

more…
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/13707316.htm

[seriousstan]

1. Do you take this position on the issue of abortion also?

"Those who want to change the laws that local and state officials create and enforce should appeal to those entrusted with that power -- elected representatives -- and stop threatening judges with harassment and personal loss for just doing their jobs."

[kskiska]

2. Are you addressing me?

I didn't write this Op Ed.

[lindisfarne]

3. What bugs me about this protest is that they chose Souter to focus

on. Why not one of the other justices who supported it who vote against the "people" far more often (Scalia, Thomas).

Nonetheless, I don't see anything wrong with what they're doing: they're acting within the law.

[kskiska]

4. I have to wonder about that, too.

Stevens wrote the opinion. Maybe it would make a little more sense if all five judges were targeted.

Doesn't look like it's going anywhere, though.

(snip)

New Hampshire state Rep. Neal Kurk said he supports limitations to the eminent domain law but that he doesn't believe the group can succeed in its quest to have Souter kicked out of his home.

"The idea we would take somebody's property to put up an inn is laughable," said Kurk, a Republican who has represented Weare in the state Legislature for more than 20 years.

Kurk added that the town council will likely frown on a Californian bringing the issue to the agenda.

Souter is a longtime resident of the town and "as honorable a man as one could find in America," Kurk said.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/21/eminent.domain/

[yellowdoginGA]

5. scalia and thomas didn't vote with the majority

they sided with oconnor in the dissent. thomas even wrote a more scathing dissent than oconnor did.

[eggman67]

9. Probably because those justices (Scalia, Thomas)

DIDN'T support it.

[Demeter]

6. I Expect People Thought Souter Would Know Better Than To Permit It

Funny how that works: NH Live Free or Die, conservative kind of culture, very protective of the property rights of individuals; David Souter, poster boy for NH, goes and sells out to wheeler-dealer developers, and people get upset.

They never expected better out of Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor, since those people demonstrated ready willingness to sell out to the highest bidder, and to have a hard time recognizing women's right to their own bodies and lives, let alone real estate property.

But Souter? Somehow he was held to a higher standard. People thought he could be shamed into at least admitting he erred.

[yellowdoginGA]

7. What are you talking about?

scalia, thomas, o'connor and rehnquist voted against the developers. they sided with the little guy. they backed the individuals against the government. souter, ginsburg, stevens, and kennedy sided with the government. why would they go after scalia etc.???

[kskiska]

8. The guy behind this is a right-wing activist

who was also involved in the Gray Davis recall.

My theory on why they chose Souter instead of the others is that they knew the others were Libs, but Souter was chosen by Poppy and intended to be one of their own. In their eyes he's a turncoat and they loathe him. This is payback.

[tn-guy]

10. Major logic flaw in that editorial

"They seem to believe that stomping all over Souter's rights to his 200-year-old farmhouse....."

Problem is, Souter voted with the majority in Kelo which basically says that an individual has no rights to his own property. If Kelo has no right to keep her property (as Souter held) then Souter has no right to keep his.

Sort of, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."