Haw, Haw, Haw, Haw, Haw!
Time for a little self-loathing for Justice Souter?
Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.
Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.
The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."
Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.
"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."
You go, Clem!







This would be such sweet "Justice" !!!
I think someone should do that to all of the ones that voted yes to allowing big business to take someone's home away from them.
ging at June 30, 2005 9:53 AM
Actually, the decision was a victory for state's rights and against judicial activism, because it left standing state law and decided not to do judicial activism on it. Which means that the electorate in the states can get to work and elect those representatives who promise to change the laws. Which was how I thought the system was supposed to work....
rhc at June 30, 2005 11:24 AM
between the medical marijuana ruling and kelo, the supreme court had an awakening concerning states rights? thanks for the news, rhc.
kittie at June 30, 2005 12:18 PM
What a *golden* harvest for Souter to reap...instant karma is a bitch.
Goddyss at June 30, 2005 2:17 PM
This is doubleplusgood news. Big brother is fast approaching.
Patrick the cynic at July 1, 2005 6:59 AM
The ruling is no victory at all. Rather than enforce a model Constitution restricting the seizure of individual assets, the court chose to allow others to FORCE YOU to do what they want.
The issue of incorporation is raised here, and it asks you whether you want a local government to be allowed to violate the rights of individuals. rhc says, "Yes". Ahem.
Radwaste at July 1, 2005 4:35 PM
Love it! Just deserts and he shouldn't complain; sure they're taking his land, but at least they won't leave him small pox and syphillis
Lia at July 2, 2005 1:09 AM
Leave a comment