Justice Souter owned.

[gh0st]

A private developer, using the new ruling Souter himself made on the supreme court regarding private property is now getting exactly what he deserves. This 'conservative' judge is an abomination, I hope his house does get taken over.

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.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

 

[The Mullinator]

rofl!

I hope that judge gets owned badly. What a moron.

 

[gh0st]

rofl!

I hope that judge gets owned badly. What a moron.

There are 5 morons on the supreme court who all should have their houses taken.

 

[The Mullinator]

There are 5 morons on the supreme court who all should have their houses taken.

Very true. I wonder if any of Bush's relatives live on a particularly good piece of land when it comes to potential tax incomes.

This law really is going to be abused by all kinds of people.

 

[gh0st]

Very true. I wonder if any of Bush's relatives live on a particularly good piece of land when it comes to potential tax incomes.

This law really is going to be abused by all kinds of people.

thats whats so scary about it... a whole new type of witch hunt scenario. if somebody has enough money, they simply buy your house, give you a fraction of the money its worth, and send you packing. and where on EARTH isnt it more economically viable to put a hotel or a restaurant?

 

[Icarusintel]

f*cking owned! I hope Souter gets what he deserves for making such a ridiculous decision, everyone who voted in support of it should be taken out back and beaten, but I guess this is far more fitting justice, thumbs up for the guy who's looking to make the hotel, the Supreme Court needs a damn reality check, and this would certainly be a good one

 

[Razor]

Can America really claim to still be "Land of the Free"?

 

[Icarusintel]

Can America really claim to still be "Land of the Free"?

not with the supreme court screwing us over as they are

 

[ríomhaire]

Deserved, simply deserved.

 

[Apos]

So, let me get this straight: a judge decides a case based on his reading of case law and precedent, and some people that don't like it decide to be asses and use the law to attack him. How does that make him "owned" again?

The sheer ignorance about cases like this is just painful to watch. I don't much like the decision either, but argue the merits of the case, don't act like three-year olds.

 

[Icarusintel]

So, let me get this straight: a judge decides a case based on his reading of case law and precedent, and some people that don't like it decide to be asses and use the law to attack him. How does that make him "owned" again?

The sheer ignorance about cases like this is just painful to watch. I don't much like the decision either, but argue the merits of the case, don't act like three-year olds.

ok, well, there is no merit to the case, they wrongly interpreted the rights states and cities posses for "emminent domain" which was only supposed to be used for public projects, for use in private projects now as well, which completely kills any kind of rights to property if a large corporation found a good arguement for raising tax revenue and local economy and the city or state bought it
in other words, if walmart wants your house and your city/state agree then you better start looking for somewhere else to live, and don;t expect the full value of your house either, this just screws over anyone living on prime land for businesses

and on a personal note, i'm glad someone did this, perhaps it will be a wake up call to the courts that the things they do effect everyone, including themselves, and besides, I've always loved a good bit of irony

 

[Kangy]

Yeah, using the law to attack somebody isn't really something I'd usually approve of, but the irony here is served so tender, I just can't resist having a chuckle at it.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

He'll be owned once it happens, me thinks. Which is probably unlikely (oxymoron ).

I don't know who the guy is or much about the particular law, but on the surface it seems like it shouldn't have passed.

All this is based, however, on the idea that the law would actually be used to "destroy people's homes and replace them with wal-mart", which is something I see as equally unlikely.
I'd be willing to bet the law was designed to shut down derelict industrial or commercial buildings.
But obviously it needs some better wording.

 

[MjM]

I mean its kinda hard to understand why that one judge was singled out. But its still funny. I would still feel bad about it though. Hopefully it makes a big enough impact on people that their decision is overturned.

I hope those judges lose their positions as well, that shows real neglect on their part. Really short sighted.

No link by the way.

 

[Apos]

ok, well, there is no merit to the case, they wrongly interpreted the rights states and cities posses for "emminent domain" which was only supposed to be used for public projects,

Look. It's nice that you have an opinion, but the law is far more complicated than "how I personally think things should work." What is the definition of public good? Is blight a public bad?

for use in private projects now as well, which completely kills any kind of rights to property if a large corporation found a good arguement for raising tax revenue and local economy and the city or state bought it in other words, if walmart wants your house and your city/state agree then you better start looking for somewhere else to live, and don;t expect the full value of your house either, this just screws over anyone living on prime land for businesses

Again, what is the legal argument here? Keep in mind that what the ruling in the case did was not decide the issue in any case: it was basically to make state elected officials in charge of the decision instead of federal judges. It's highly hypocritical for people to rail about tyrranical judges when this decision reaffirmed the power of elected officials.

 

[gh0st]

So, let me get this straight: a judge decides a case based on his reading of case law and precedent, and some people that don't like it decide to be asses and use the law to attack him. How does that make him "owned" again?

Lighten up. Even you have to see the irony here. Well did it ever occur to you that "his reading" (whatever the **** that means) of the law is, uh, wrong? You're the same kind of arse who thinks the 9th circuit and supreme courts never make wrong decisions. I'm sure justice souter didnt properly see the long term consequences and tyrannical nature of this ruling - this is merely removing the towel from his eyes.

The sheer ignorance about cases like this is just painful to watch. I don't much like the decision either, but argue the merits of the case, don't act like three-year olds.

Ignorance? I'm interested to see what ignorance i've demonstrated. Three year olds? Ah **** off you arent worth any time.

Again, what is the legal argument here? Keep in mind that what the ruling in the case did was not decide the issue in any case: it was basically to make state elected officials in charge of the decision instead of federal judges. It's highly hypocritical for people to rail about tyrranical judges when this decision reaffirmed the power of elected officials.

And awareness is bad? Its irrelevant, this ruling has thrust the whole issue into the national spotlight whether you like it or not.

 

[MjM]

Anything that undermines property rights in any form is bad. Simple as that.

Isnt the point that if the law is such, that this guy can actually get away with what he's attempting, it proves the law is a total doosey?

I mean anyone can see that this is rediculous and totally obsurd what he's doing, he knows that, hence the names he's come up with for the cafe's etc.

He is trying to point out that the law is flawed and needs to be changed.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

suits him right, take his f@cking house

 

[Apos]

Well did it ever occur to you that "his reading" (whatever the **** that means) of the law is, uh, wrong?

The reason you're such a worm is that you say things like this without even a clue as to what the law is. Again: you have no ability to judge whether his reading is right or wrong, and yet you for some reason feel qualified to blather on about it. That has to be about the silliest thing a human being can do. Is that ignorant? That is the very DEFINITION of ignorance.

I'm sure justice souter didnt properly see the long term consequences and tyrannical nature of this ruling - this is merely removing the towel from his eyes.

So now you want judges to make up the law in accordance with whatever suits them personally? You have 0 consistency.

 

[gh0st]

The reason you're such a worm is that you say things like this without even a clue as to what the law is. Again: you have no ability to judge whether his reading is right or wrong, and yet you for some reason feel qualified to blather on about it. That has to be about the silliest thing a human being can do. Is that ignorant? That is the very DEFINITION of ignorance.

This folks, is what you call forced hatred. See, he doesnt like me because i'm conservative, so he feels compelled to attempt to belittle my knowledge of the situation. Let me tell you, crotchstain, I'm equally as qualified to give my opinion on this law (which i DO understand, contrary to your arrogant, pretentious regurgitation) as i am about abortion, how fat and ugly your mom is, or any other political subject. Based upon your hypocritical and senseless assumption, no news analyst has any right to speak about it because - oops! - they arent the JUDGE so surely they cant understand basic judicial concepts. You think you're so damn smart because you wasted hours upon hours slaving for john "failure" kerry... rediculous.

So now you want judges to make up the law in accordance with whatever suits them personally? You have 0 consistency.

it will be interesting, anyway, to see how it plays out. i made no such precedent and your accusation is really baseless and stupid. like, coincidentally, everything else that spews forth from your "englightened" maw.

 

[MjM]

If the law allows for this to happen then its a PoS and i agree the judge is fair game.

 

[Apos]

This folks, is what you call forced hatred. See, he doesnt like me because i'm conservative, so he feels compelled to attempt to belittle my knowledge of the situation.

What a fascinating post that... again never manages to quote any relevant law or reasoning whatsoever besides "I heard on tv that I don't like this!" It's too bad that they don't hold contests for being the biggest loser. Though, if they did, I'm sure you'd still find some way to lose.

i made no such precedent and your accusation is really baseless and stupid.

You basically said that Souter didn't see that this law could be used to attack him. But giving defference to that ISN'T what a judge is supposed to do.

 

[Ikerous]

Let me tell you, crotchstain, I'm equally as qualified to give my opinion on this law (which i DO understand, contrary to your arrogant, pretentious regurgitation) as i am about abortion, how fat and ugly your mom is

Personal attacks are really uncalled for and just belittle any point you're attempting to make...

On topic, It's pretty juvenile what these people are doing... then again I'm probably a bit biased on the subject since I agrea with the court's ruling on the issue.

 

[Eg.]

well, when they say "generate tax revenue, or economic factors", that can vary. i think it is absurd for the government to claim your land and have it developed into a hotel or theme park. BUT if the land is say needed for a new power plant that will suppy a growing city, or if new housing projects need to be built (not porject project, but like reisdentail areas), then yes, the government and state does kinda have the priority over the land.

i like what this guy is doing, by acting like a jackass(bless him) any descion that comes from this may set the standard for teh future

 

[smwScott]

This is a pretty basic situation. If the hotel wins, then the law is extremely flawed and the judge deserves it for passing it. If it doesn't, well this doesn't help anyones case. That's pretty much the end of discussion.

If you want to whine about it being petty or juvenile, go ahead, but no one really cares.

 

[Apos]

This is a pretty basic situation. If the hotel wins, then the law is extremely flawed and the judge deserves it for passing it.

You're under the mistaken impression that judges pass laws. They don't. They rule on what the existing case law leads. The fact that you and ghost and others are ignorant of both this AND the relevant case law demonstrates that you aren't equipped to have an informed opinion on whether it was the right decision or not. Simply judging it by an outcome you don't like is nonsensical.

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

You're under the mistaken impression that judges pass laws. They don't. They rule on what the existing case law leads. The fact that you and ghost and others are ignorant of both this AND the relevant case law demonstrates that you aren't equipped to have an informed opinion on whether it was the right decision or not. Simply judging it by an outcome you don't like is nonsensical.

Why don't you explain the situation to us all fully (or as much as you think appropriate) then mate?


I don't really know much on this subject but I'd like to learn.

 

[gh0st]

What a fascinating post that... again never manages to quote any relevant law or reasoning whatsoever besides "I heard on tv that I don't like this!" It's too bad that they don't hold contests for being the biggest loser. Though, if they did, I'm sure you'd still find some way to lose.

1. Didnt ever say that. I gave an example, and you reply with one of the lamest insults ive ever seen. Congratulations UR SAMRT!11
2. Ironically you've not posted any relevant law or reasoning either. Your hypocricy astounds and amazes me Apos.

You basically said that Souter didn't see that this law could be used to attack him. But giving defference to that ISN'T what a judge is supposed to do.

You're right. Merely a twist of irony is all i intended by this thread. Like it or leave it.

Personal attacks are really uncalled for and just belittle any point you're attempting to make...

I wont lose any sleep over it.

You're under the mistaken impression that judges pass laws. They don't. They rule on what the existing case law leads. The fact that you and ghost and others are ignorant of both this AND the relevant case law demonstrates that you aren't equipped to have an informed opinion on whether it was the right decision or not. Simply judging it by an outcome you don't like is nonsensical.

I never said any kind of judge pass any kind of law. i realize that isnt law. This is a speculation that you yourself made. the point is, the PRECEDENT which this case sets (like ALL supreme case courts set) is a negative one and IN MY AND MANY OTHERS opinion, wrong. get it now? Who is judging it by an outcome? the ruling is incorrect and i disagree with it. your pompous language leads me to believe you are grasping desperatly at straws to try and discredit anybody who disagrees with you.

 

[smwScott]

You're under the mistaken impression that judges pass laws. They don't. They rule on what the existing case law leads. The fact that you and ghost and others are ignorant of both this AND the relevant case law demonstrates that you aren't equipped to have an informed opinion on whether it was the right decision or not. Simply judging it by an outcome you don't like is nonsensical.

The supreme courts decision lead to much easier abuse of imminent domain laws by private corporations. This is a decision that I personally disagree with, regardless of whether some pompous forum goer believes I am qualified to posess such an opinion.

Also, do you not agree that if the hotel is built then it exploits an obvious flaw within the law? Imminent domain was originally intended for the government to forcibly purchase land from citizens in rare circumstances, such as a vital railway connection or what have you. What it has evolved to now is a clear perversion. The supreme court, while not responsible for the law itself, are responsible for the continued degradation of it with the latest ruling. It is their flawed interpretation of the law which leads to cases such as the hotel being possible.