Posted on 01/21/2006 7:09:56 AM PST by beaversmom
CONCORD, N.H. -- Angered by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that sided with a Connecticut city that wanted to seize homes for economic development, a group of activists is trying to get one of the justices who voted for the decision evicted from his own home.
The group, led by a California man, wants Justice David Souter's home seized for the purpose of building an inn called "Lost Liberty Hotel."
They submitted enough petition signatures -- only 25 were needed -- to bring the matter before voters in March. This weekend, they're descending on Souter's hometown, the central New Hampshire town of Weare, population 8,500, to rally for support.
"This is in the tradition of the Boston Tea Party and the Pine Tree Riot," organizer Logan Darrow Clements said, referring to the riot that took place during the winter of 1771-1772, when colonists in Weare beat up officials appointed by King George III who fined them for logging white pines without approval.
"All we're trying to do is put an end to eminent domain abuse," Clements said, by having those who advocate or facilitate it "live under it, so they understand why it needs to end."
Bill Quigley, Weare deputy police chief, said if protesters show up, they're going to be told to stay across the street from a dirt road that leads to Souter's brown farmhouse, which is more than 200 years old. It isn't known if Souter will be home.
"They're obviously not going to be allowed on Justice Souter's property," he said. "There's no reason for anybody to go down that road unless they live on that road, and we know the residents that live there. The last time (Clements) showed up, they had a total of about three or four people who showed up to listen...
(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...
I'll tell you exactly what he was thinking. It went something like this:
"I really need to appoint a Justice from New England. Warren Rudman says this guy would be great and I just know I can trust Warren Rudman. After all, New Hampshire has elected him to the Senate twice. He must be trustworthy. Besides, how bad could this Souter fella be, anyway?"
Warren Rudman = the slimiest slithering dirtbag to ever go to Washington from NH.
Nonsense...at the time, Souter was regarded as a fervent conservative.
I wonder what happened then.
"Why not?"
See. You don't understand.
These Judges think they are the last arbitor of Justice, and us 'little people' must succumb to their judgement.
What they fail to understand is, 'WE THE PEOPLE' are the 'last' arbitors of justice and can and should remove these judges if we need to.
Uhh. . . I thought the whole point of Communism was to rob from the rich and give to the poor. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" as it were.
When the politically connected do as they will, and all the rest of us can say is "How about a little vaseline next time?" that's Fascism, not Communism.
Unless its a private road, there is no reason needed.
as perpetrated by the RAT justices "for people" !!!
Vote the bastRATs out into oblivion!!!
Tagline: "Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal"
The prerequisite character of the leftist mind is
a delusional perception of cause and effect.
EVICT Souter than later.
".....to bring the matter before voters in March. "
Time to get out the vote.
The strange thing about this SCOTUS decision is that libs are as mad about this as anyone. Its amazing what libs want......until they find out it could happen to them.
Isn't it great? I thought this had gone away.
Another thing I would like to know about Souter is exactly why he was walking in that Washington, DC, park at that extremely early morning hour. Boy, did that "news" item come and go in a hurry.
This is an OLD story. What has happened that is NEW with it?
I think you mis-read. I was answering "why not?" to this statement...
You don't go after a judge personally because you disagree with his judgments.
I was saying, why shouldnt we go after judges personally when we disagree with their judgements.
I wann't thinking of the property seizure case in particular, but so often SDO provided the fifth and sixth liberal votes on many issues.
"EVICT Souter than later."
Nice play on words.
I like that.
:)
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.