Movement builds to seize Souter home

World Net Daily ^ | 07/11/05

[Republican Wildcat]

So you also advocate Scalia, O'Connor, Thomas, and Rehnquist killing the other members of the SCOTUS?

What an insult to Goldwater you'd use him to promote such idiocy.

[WorkingClassFilth]

Thanks for the blast from the past. Gives me the chills remembering it, though. Heck, I was still a lurker.

[Dark Glasses and Corncob Pipe]

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." (Goldwater)

Nuff said?

"Because others on the list had more imposing legal credentials, Judge O'Connor was no sure thing. But she had a friend in court - literally - in William Rehnquist, then an associate justice, whom she had briefly dated when they were both students at Stanford Law School, and the endorsement of her home state senator, Barry Goldwater, then Mr. Conservative of the Republican Party. ..."

- Lou Cannon
http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/12959.html

[diamond6]

This article made my day. Thanks for posting it.

[Melas]

What would be amusing here would be if Souter isn't really attached to the place, and winds up making a profit if it's successfully annexed. Someone didn't think this through.

[Freebird Forever]

So you also advocate Scalia, O'Connor, Thomas, and Rehnquist killing the other members of the SCOTUS?

Baseless inflammatory accusations are such a rat thing to do.

I advocate the previous poster's right to speak and/or act extremely in defense of his liberty.

You don't? Hmmm....

What an insult to Goldwater you'd use him to promote such idiocy.

The insult is that the party of Goldwater is now populated with an overabundance of milquetoast knee-jerk types who are far too willing to legislate and compromise away what the Founding Fathers won for us.

[Republican Wildcat]

You're lying.

[Republican Wildcat]

Let me expand on that:

OR you did not pay attention to what I responding to and decided to comment anyway. Either way, you are making yourself look rather silly.

[righttackle44]

"New Hampshire home of Justice David Souter"

I see it IS evil--needs to be condemned for the common
good.

I wish I had a few extra bucks to support the project.
Maybe in a couple of weeks.

[Freebird Forever]

You're lying. .... OR you did not pay attention to what I responding to and decided to comment anyway.

I saw exactly what was posted in comment #5 and your response in #39.

I supported the other Freeper's right to use extreme rhetoric, and used Goldwater's comment as justification for my support.

I lied about nothing.

I don't know what his intentions were when he posted that comment. But it served to provide cover for slightly less extreme ideas, like invoking eminent domain to take Souter's house.

EcoRats have been using this tactic for years. Greenpeace provided cover for the Sierra Club. Then Earthfirst provided cover for Greenpeace. Now ELF provides cover for Earthfirst.

As the rhetoric and hyperbole continue to escalate, the former extremists appear moderate in comparison.

Like I stated previously, I don't know what was in his heart when he posted #5 but I fully support his right to say it.

If you still view me as lying or silly, I'll look upon you as naive and politically amateurish.

So be it.

[snowsislander]

This project made it to the White House press briefing on July 12th:

Q Does the President believe that it is outrageous for a Los Angeles advertising man to be conducting a campaign to persuade the town selectmen of Weare, New Hampshire, to approve the building of a hotel on the land where Justice Souter's house is located? Or does he regard this as an historic irony resulting from Souter's vote in the case of Kelo versus the City of New London --

MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't seen anything on it. Jim, go ahead.

Q You didn't see anything on it? You'd like to evade this one, wouldn't you.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I haven't seen anything on it, Les. I like to see reports before I comment on it.

Q No, it's the other ones he's trying to evade.

Q -- on why you can't answer Ed's question about whether -- generally speaking, whether the administration has a credibility problem. I think a lot of people are tuning in, wondering, can we trust what this White House says, can we trust what Scott McClellan says.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes.

Q I'm not talking about the case. Can you just address -- do you feel like there's a credibility problem?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you all in this room know me very well. And you know the type of person that I am. You, and many others in this room, have dealt with me for quite some time. The President is a very straightforward and plainspoken person, and I'm someone who believes in dealing in a very straightforward way with you all, as well, and that's what I've worked to do.

[leadpenny]

Call-In
Supreme Court and Property Rights
C-SPAN, Washington Journal
Washington, District of Columbia (United States)
ID: 187675 - 4 - 07/16/2005 - 0:30 - No Sale



Eagle, Steven, Professor, George Mason University, Law




The guest talks about the recent Supreme Court ruling Kelo v. New London that upheld that local governments can seize homes and businesses against the will of the owner for private economic development. He explains how eminent domain law works and what the Supreme Court ruling means for property owners.

http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp

Live, on C-SPAN's Washington Journal. Just started.