[rocksblues]

As Judge Souter is one of the ruling elite I don't expect anything to come of this but it sure must have tightened his shorts a bit!

[Nateman]

I'd even go to see it. I suggest he makes a public rest room right in the
very spot where the judge used to sleep. So I can have the extra pleasure
of doing in that very spot to what he did to the constitution!

[Nateman]

"The big thing is, you have to own the land before you deal with me," he said.

Such backwards thinking on his part! Just does not get it does he? Nobody gets to own his land now, its now always for sale to any connected high bidder. So stop being so Old Fashioned and give this jerk of a judge a taste of his own whim!

[LRS]

"The first lesson, simple as it is, is that whatever court we're in, whatever we are doing, at the end of our task some human being is going to be affected. Some human life is going to be changed by what we do. And so we had better use every power of our minds and our hearts and our beings to get those rulings right." - Justice David H. Souter upon being sworn in as a member of the SCOTUS

[Conservatrix]

I love this.Best thing to come along since this horrid ruling.

Hope this guy takes HIS fight right to the SCOTUS. Wonder what Souter will do then?

[America First Libertarian]

He dare oppose the philosopher king?

[FBD]

[FReethesheeples]

Thanks for your post. Bump.

I wrote an e-mail to him offering to invest in the Lost Freedom Hotel project, the day Rush & Drudge mentioned ths intiative. He was undoubtedly swamped. Great idea. I also told him I was well aware of the Free State initiative, of which Rush said he was a part. (It is indeeed a bit ironic that Souter is from NH.)

It is great to see Americans so aware of, & energized in defense of, private property rights by addressing threats, this terrible precedent (Kelo v. New London), and becoming aware of the downside of activist Judges. I have been concerned with both of these related issues for about a decade. I even had brief, separate, conversational encounters with two of the "good" Justices (Scalia & Thomas) in the Kelo case about 6 or 7 years ago re: "The Takings Clause" of the 5th Amendment designed to protect private property from arbitrary seizures, but providing for Eminent Domain for certain "public use" (NOT "public purpose") . It was clear they were anxious to see some good cases walk toward them. I doubt if they would have predicted the bizarre outcome in Kelo, though.

For those of us who are deeply concerned with protection of Private Property from improper application of Eminent Domain in contravention of the Original Intent of the Founders in the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause, I am registering a warning or a concern:

I think AG (& potential USSC Nominee) Alberto Gonzales is very weak on Private Property Rights and lacks an understanding of orignainl intent of the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause (Eminent Domain) based both upon some cases when he ws at the texas Supreme Ct. (e.g., FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000))

and, more recently and significantly, upon his NOT having joined in the Kelo case on the side of property owner. My understanding ws that he had sided with the League of Cities against Kelo while WH Counsel.

As some have frequently observed, he certainly believes in a "Living Constitution" and is NOT a strict constructionist or an Originalist, but rather tends toward the Activist side, per National Review Online and others.

He has been sharply critical of Priscilla Owen in some Texas Supreme Ct. decisions when they were both on that Ct. as Justices, and he has been quoted as being sharply criticial fo Janice Rogers Brown, including being quoted by People for the American Way in their ultra-leftist propaganda.