Activists Seek to Evict Souter From Home (haunted by eminent domain)

[ProSense]

Activists Seek to Evict Souter From Home

By KATHY McCORMACK, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 28 minutes ago

CONCORD, N.H. - 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.


more...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060121/ap_on_re_us/hotel_souter

[SmokingJacket]

1. How great is that??

we lost a whole building full of small independent business because the city threatened it with eminent domain if didn't sell to the developer of a massive hotel...

[ProSense]

2. That's terrible.

The SC justices need to realize how stupid and insensitive some of these laws are, and be reminded that they are not above them.

[radio4progressives]

3. Lost Liberty Hotel gets My Nomination!

:kick: :applause:

[Karmageddon]

4. Ahhhh. The sweet smell of justice. Such a rarity nowadays.

[No Exit]

5. I know that some will disagree with me, but I think this is just fabulous

and I certainly hope that Souter is not the only public official for whom THEIR OWN DESPOTIC BEHAVIOR will come home to roost--in a personal way.

The S. Court opinion is worth reading; I have read some of it, but not all of it. All I can say is, this type of thinking scares me, and it should scare all who own property. There was also a recent case of an elderly lady whose home (in her family for about a century) was taken so a Walgreen's could be built. That case was, I think, in Illinois.

Why doesn't someone use eminent domain to build factories, or something else useful, on that land George W. * owns in Texas?

[progressoid]

13. Ohhh, that's funny. I hope this goes somewhere and doesn't die

in legal limbo somewhere.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

6. Outstanding!!!!! n/t

[earth mom]

7. Love it! K & R!

:applause:

[Elidor]

8. Love it! n/t

[babylonsister]

9. Poetic justice! nt

[CrackpotAmerica]

10. Thanks for posting This! :nominated: NT

[nicknameless]

11. But are we running a risk by alienating one of the few justices on SCOTUS

who has voted more moderately for us on a number of cases (think Bush v Gore)?

That eminent domain ruling sucked. Eminent domain, in general, sucks.

But we are going to need a few sane voices in the future. In a lot of cases, Souter has been one of them (or as close as we can get with this particular court).

[ProSense]

12. Maybe this will change his mind about the sucky law. n/t

[nicknameless]

15. I'm more concerned that it will change his mind about being moderate.

[usregimechange]

14. Good for them!