Pack your bags, Justice Souter

This is priceless:

Press Release
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media
Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter’s land.
Justice Souter’s vote in the “Kelo vs. City of New London” decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter’s home.
Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

God willing, the town selectmen of Weare will approve the request.
Hat tip: Rush Limbaugh

  1. Of course you realize that even if the resolution is passed, it would not be consitutional for the government to confiscate Souter’s house on these grounds. The law looks at motivation, and if the primary motivation is retaliation rather than social improvement then the taking will be blocked. I promise you that Justice Souter is not losing any sleep over this.

  2. Since our Constitution is a “living document” everything is possible, n’est pas?
    Non-commercial intrastate activity becomes interstate commerce, private use becomes public use … why shouldn’t retaliation become social improvement? After all, as society evolves and changes we change our interpretations to bend with the wind. And let’s not forget what our friends in other countries do with antiquated notions like “private property.” Justice Souter and his pals love the idea of looking to foreign law for help with interpreting our Constitution, after all.
    From a “living document” perspective, it all sounds kosher to me.

  3. I understand your frustration, I don’t like the decision either. But I think it is a bit hyperbolic to say that the courts might look at retaliation as a type of social improvement. If anything, the courts would find that confiscation for the purposes of retaliation is against public policy because it interferes with checks and balances. After all, if the legislature can punish judges for their decisions by taking their homes, that would not be good. You are right in that anything is possible, but realistically this idea of taking Souter’s home does not have a chance.

Comments are closed.