The lost liberty hotel : Souter's comeuppance

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | 07/05/05 | Editorial

[smoothsailing]

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice David H. Souter lives in a $100,000 rustic farmhouse in Weare, N.H. -- population 8,400.

Mr. Justice Souter is said to love the residence and the quiet peace it affords. However, when you take into account a California man's idea for building a hotel on the property, the justice's attachment to his abode fades into the inconsequential.

[26lemoncharlie]

Teddy has a 4 million dollar home in DC, What a Hotel that would make!!! Let's get some investments going !!

[Paleo Conservative]

So, the hotel would have the "Just Desserts Cafe,"

[Paleo Conservative]

I figured out another menu item.

Revenge, a dish best served cold.

[Paleo Conservative]

So if this proposal were accepted by the local government, and Souter fought it, would the entire Supreme Court have to recuse itself?

[smoothsailing]

LOL! Not if W get's a bunch of new Supremes! ;)

[doug from upland]

I was going to write him a LETTER OF INTENT for a purchase and let him know that, if he didn't sell, we would get it condemned and deduct our costs for such action. Should I make it about $75,000?

[backlash]

Lots of great ideas have been offered concerning Souters' property, but why stop there? Four other justices colluded with him to strip American citizens of their rights and should rightly face the same music. This should also apply to the various city fathers moving ahead with their now legal land grabs.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

This puts Souter between a rock and a hard place. if he doesn't recuse himself, and overturns himself, he comes across as a total hypocrite. OTOH, if he does nothing, he loses his home. What delicious irony.

[Navy Patriot]

I hope this goes far enough to force the town selectmen to vote on this proposal for two reasons: 1) If they vote to take, Souter will have to use equal protection to attempt to stop the taking. If successful, Souter will force the elimination of takings in that entire district, as equal protection also makes ALL citizens equal to Souter. 2) If they vote not to take all citizens again will get equal treatment and there will be no takings in the entire district. The town is between a rock and a hard place, the only way out is to take and have Souter lose his petition at SCOTUS with himself recused.

[holyscroller]

Pictures! Pictures! Let's see what our future hotel site looks like.

[Paleo Conservative]

This puts Souter between a rock and a hard place. if he doesn't recuse himself, and overturns himself, he comes across as a total hypocrite.

But when you consider all the justices on SCOTUS would personally know Justice Souter, wouldn't all of the justices have to recuse themselves? In that case wouldn't the appealate decision stand?

[smoothsailing]

At 75K you might be a low bid.;)

[Paleo Conservative]

This is positively the WORST SCOTUS decision I have ever heard of.

We need a constitutional amendment that allows a supermajority of both houses of Congress or a supermajority of state legislatures to override SCOTUS decisions. We also need to submit the Bricker amendment back to Congress and hopefully make it an amendemnt to the Constitution too.

[Paleo Conservative]

"Just Desserts Cafe,"

They need torte reform on the menu too.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Perhaps, but since the SCOTUS decision was so clear, it would mean a very big outcry from many about the obvious hypocrisy involved. I seriously doubt that the courts would want to go there...

[smoothsailing]

Eggs Benedict Arnold

[AmishDude]

Why does everybody think that Souter would mind? Before ED stretched into the area of private land for private land, people often sold when a developer came to town. The problem was usually with a woman in her 70s or 80s who didn't want to bother with the sale and relocation. I don't know why everybody is so sure he'd fight this.

It feels nice, but I'm not sure it will have the desired effect.

[Paleo Conservative]

Sandra Day O'Connor Waffles.