Posted on 07/10/2005 7:07:34 AM PDT by Libloather
US judge set to lose home under law he brought in
By Charles Laurence in New York
(Filed: 10/07/2005)
A US Supreme Court Judge could lose his country farmhouse thanks to a controversial law which he himself voted to bring in.
Furious protesters are plotting to seize David Souter's $150,000 (£86,400) 19th century home and turn it into a hotel after he voted to give towns the legal right to make compulsory purchases. They view his support for the legislation as an affront to every American's inviolable right to personal property.
In retaliation, they are determined to make him pay with the loss of his home in the countryside outside the town of Weare in New Hampshire, where the official state motto is "Live Free or Die". The hotel would be called The Lost Freedom, and its restaurant, The Just Desserts.
Under the new law, a town may issue a compulsory purchase order - known in America as purchase by "eminent domain" - on a private property and pass it on to a commercial developer if it considers that the development would benefit the town and its people as a whole.
Mr Souter cast the swing vote in the unpopular 5-to-4 court decision in the case of Kelo vs City of New London, Connecticut.
Opinion polls show that 95 per cent of Americans disapprove of the ruling and believe that compulsory purchase should be used only to transfer ownership of blighted property which has become a danger to the community.
Logan Darrow Clements is the publishing entrepreneur and free-markets campaigner behind the counter-attack.
"By his own ruling, Weare the town has the justification for such an action because the hotel project we are submitting will benefit the town by creating new jobs and a higher tax revenue," he said.
According to town officials, the audacious bid has a chance of success. "As far as we are concerned, we need to take this seriously under these new rules and are setting up meetings," said Charles Meany, Weare's official in charge of planning.
He warned, however, that Mr Souter's house was in a protected rural area.
Weare, population 8,500, has five councillors, known as "selectmen", who have not so far commented. Even if they decide not to order Mr Souter to sell his house, the judge will be at the mercy of the townspeople.
"The rules are that if the selectmen say no, Mr Clements can put the plan to the town on an electoral ballot next spring," Mr Meany said.
Mr Clements, 36, who made his fortune with a business magazine called American Ventures, said: "I only announced the plan six days ago, but since then I have had 5,000 offers of help from venture capitalists wanting to put in money, to architects wanting to draw the plans."
Mr Souter, who has had his house in Weare for years and is expected to spend the summer there, might be surprised by the reaction of old acquaintances in the village.
"We just had a senior citizens' meeting, and we don't like this ruling, we don't like it at all," said June Eaton, 67.
"We can't imagine what Mr Souter thinks he is doing: he is certainly not thinking of other people, and if he loses his house, he deserves it."
A Supreme Court spokesman said that the judge had "no comment" on his ruling or its consequences.
The US Supreme Court is tipped to lose another chief justice this week. William Rehnquist, 80, who is suffering from thyroid cancer, is widely expected to resign.
His departure will set the stage for a tumultuous struggle between liberal and conservative groups over President Bush's nomination of two new justices following the earlier resignation of Sandra Day O'Connor, a moderate voice.
Judges who write law should be thrown in prison...
It's little comfort to the average citizen whose lives are turned upside down thanks to this activist judge.
Sweeeeet...but I wouldn't bet on it. LOL
Let us hope.
It would be marvelous! At last a SCOTUS tyrant would receive the punish he deserves.
Nonsense. There has never been a single instance in New Hampshire where eminent domain was used to condemn property for use by a private developer. This isn't going to be the first.
On the other hand, it isn't uncommon for eminent domain to be used in California to the benefit of private developers, so I suggest that Mr. Clements keep an eye on his corporate headquarters. Payback is hell.
so kewl!
i'd even donate money to help things along.
Ping for your ping list. :-)
Actually, the hotel would be called "The Lost Liberty"
So you're suggesting criminal activity against Souter's property?
Just wondering.
I thought he still lived with his mommy?
I wonder what Daniel Webster would think of this "Government Uber Alles" Maxrist jurist that his beloved state of New Hampshire has produced?
Heh heh heh
So9
Of course not.
Glad you see it my way.
A taste of their own medicine may be all it takes to bring the reality of their detrimental ruling to light. But then again, judges are members of the "protected class" and there are surely some loopholes that protect them from retaliation. We will watch this closely. Definitely food for thought for those who wantto re-write our Constitution.
The problem of course being that this case will get appealed, and every court including the supreme court will agree to hear it.
The justices will once again rule and this time say that means everyone but them. With a footnote that the will of the voting public be damned as the public is ignorant anyhow.
The irony of things!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.