Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The lost liberty hotel : Souter's comeuppance
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | 07/05/05 | Editorial

Posted on 07/04/2005 9:18:21 PM PDT by smoothsailing

Edited on 07/04/2005 9:26:11 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

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.


(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: New Hampshire
KEYWORDS: eminentdomain; kelo; lostlibertyhotel; souter; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-47 next last

1 posted on 07/04/2005 9:18:21 PM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

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


2 posted on 07/04/2005 9:24:42 PM PDT by 26lemoncharlie ('Cuntas haereses tu sola interemisti in universo mundo!')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
So, the hotel would have the "Just Desserts Cafe,"
3 posted on 07/04/2005 9:39:12 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
I figured out another menu item.
Revenge, a dish best served cold.

4 posted on 07/04/2005 9:47:57 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

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


5 posted on 07/04/2005 9:50:50 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
LOL! Not if W get's a bunch of new Supremes! ;)
6 posted on 07/04/2005 9:54:07 PM PDT by smoothsailing (Qui Nhon Turtle Co.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

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?


7 posted on 07/04/2005 9:55:04 PM PDT by doug from upland (The Hillary documentary is coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

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.


8 posted on 07/04/2005 9:59:54 PM PDT by backlash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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. OTOH, if he does nothing, he loses his home. What delicious irony.


9 posted on 07/04/2005 10:03:53 PM PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
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.
10 posted on 07/04/2005 10:04:15 PM PDT by Navy Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

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


11 posted on 07/04/2005 10:06:49 PM PDT by holyscroller (A wise man's heart directs him toward the right, but the foolish man's heart directs him to the left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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?

12 posted on 07/04/2005 10:10:04 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
At 75K you might be a low bid.;)
13 posted on 07/04/2005 10:15:29 PM PDT by smoothsailing (Qui Nhon Turtle Co.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: ping jockey; rmlew; smoothsailing
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.

15 posted on 07/04/2005 10:24:33 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
"Just Desserts Cafe,"

They need torte reform on the menu too.

16 posted on 07/04/2005 10:26:42 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
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...
17 posted on 07/04/2005 10:27:32 PM PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Eggs Benedict Arnold


18 posted on 07/04/2005 10:35:49 PM PDT by smoothsailing (Qui Nhon Turtle Co.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
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.

19 posted on 07/04/2005 10:38:17 PM PDT by AmishDude (Once you go black hat, you never go back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
Sandra Day O'Connor Waffles.
20 posted on 07/04/2005 10:49:43 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-47 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson