Taking Souter's Home

The fun folks behind the Lost Liberty Hotel project--which seeks to seize Supreme Court Justice David Souter's New Hampshire home via eminent domain and turn it into a hotel in retribution for Kelo v. New London--had a busy weekend in The Granite State. From a press account of a Sunday rally they held in Weare, N.H.:

[Organizer Logan Darrow] Clements was greeted by rousing applause from about 60 people who attended Sunday's rally, some coming from as far away as Texas and Pennsylvania.

He said the five Supreme Court justices who sided with the Connecticut city on the eminent domain controversy "shot a hole in the Constitution." He said opponents should organize nationwide and vote officials out of office if they push similar projects.

More here. Souter has declined to comment.

A CNN story about the movement includes some great comments from a N.H. state legislator:

"The idea we would take somebody's property to put up an inn is laughable," said [Neal] Kurk, a Republican who has represented Weare in the state Legislature for more than 20 years.

Which is exactly what Souter signed off on in Kelo. From CNN's gloss on that case:

Susette Kelo and six other families brought the case against the city of New London, Connecticut, demanding the courts stop the municipality from condemning their land as part of a redevelopment project. The project was a $270 million global research facility spearheaded by pharmaceutical giant Pfizer.

Whole CNN bit here.

Compendium of Reason on eminent domain here.

Comments

[Evan]

Oh yeah, the "Hotel Lost Liberty Hotel Hotel". I remember that...

[downstater]

while i fully understand the point that these folks are trying to make, it seems a bit silly to promote the very practice you despise just to make a point about how much you despise it.

it seems to me that if you really value property rights in general, then you should value souter's specifically.

[thoreau]

downstater-

They would probably say that things have to get worse before they can get better, and better that they get worse for people who can do something about it.

I would say that it's just plain hilarious.

[fyodor]

I think this only makes libertarians look bad. If you think a judge erred in not giving a murderer the death penalty, should you get back at the judge by killing him? I think most Americans look at personal retribution towards judges for their decisions on the bench as more scary and dangerous than funny.

[thoreau]

fyodor-

The difference between your example and this case is that what you describe would be a crime, while what these people are doing is perfectly legal.

[Kevin]

I'm not sure why they targeted just Souter for payback. They probably looked at his photo and figured they could take him.

[fyodor]

thoreau,

Yes, and I was aware of that. But it's still personal retribution. I don't think abortion protesters protesting at the homes of abortionists, also perfectly legal, has done that movement's image any good. That they're actually using the law to harrass an individual I think only makes it worse, from a PR standpoint.

[Stevo Darkly]

I'm not sure why I think this, but every time I see Souter's photo or read his name, this pops up in my mind: "David Souter: The Kevin Spacey of the Supreme Court."

Maybe I'm just thinking of who should play him in the movie.

Yeah, the movie that will someday be made about this project. It'll be called Take THIS!

[Jennifer]

Fyodor, I think the point is to make Souter actually be affected by the law he helped to create. Too many of the people involved in lawmaking are completely unaffected by the laws they pass.

[Dan T.]

I think this only makes libertarians look bad. If you think a judge erred in not giving a murderer the death penalty, should you get back at the judge by killing him? I think most Americans look at personal retribution towards judges for their decisions on the bench as more scary and dangerous than funny.

Yeah, really. If there is an anti-libertarian group out there, this would be a good example to use if they wanted to illustrate libertarians as nuts.

[downstater]

i think a more principled way of demonstrating a point would be to develop a plan through which souter's property could be redeveloped to produce more economic activity, present this plan publicly, but decline to carry it out because the group actually respects property rights in such situations. "see souter, we're not like you."

this "we'll show you what it feels like" routine, as fyodor points out, is pure retribution.

c'mon guys, you're better than that.

[ChicagoTom]

fyodor,

I tend to believe just the opposite. I think most people who followed Kelo and this story were quite upset/alarmed about the outcome. I think anyone who paid attention to the case has to at some point stop and think "Wow..this could happen to me", so from that aspect, I think most people would be sympathetic to the Lost Liberty Hotel group. And I think most people would see it (if it were successful) as a bit of fitting irony.

Also, it seems to me that many people feel that the justices and many politicians live a quite insulated life and don't really understand how many of their decisions/actions are going to affect real people. This is one hell of a way to force them to empathize with the average joe.

Personally, I think its a great idea. It may not be successful, but it does help to make a point in a non-conventional way that resonantes with the "average joe"

[thoreau]

My suspicion is that if this group actually gets anywhere with the idea they will take it all the way to the brink but then stop just short of kicking him out.

Of course, they might wait until he's hired a moving van and packed all his dishes.

As far as public image, keep in mind that a lot of people besides libertarians were outraged by the decision. And there's always a certain amount of satisfaction when a powerful person gets some karmic justice. I think a lot of non-libertarians would enjoy the image.

[theCoach]

"Which is exactly what Souter signed off on in Kelo."

Not really. The ruling argued that elected officials had a greater latitude than you would like in determining public good for eminent domain.
Pretty clearly it would not have allowed eminent domain as retribution. The ruling takes into account corrupt motivations,and it rests on good faith belief in the public good.
If I were on the court (and not knowing precedents), I think I would have ruled in the minority, it is a huge mistake to assume that the justices who ruled against Kelo, were advocating for the taking.

[downstater]

i am not sure that the average joe's ideal brand of justice or making of a point is something that is necessarily a good thing.

if they are tailoring a point to resonate with the common man, then i find it to be a pandering one at best. in my mind, if you respect private property rights so much, then prove it by respecting souter's.

likewise, i don't find empathy to be a requirement for creating legislation or developing a judgment. if this is what we require, then all those men on the scotus will have a hard time ruling on any abortion decision.

again, i understand why many don't like this ruling. i just find this to be a hypocritical form of protest.

[Dobbo]

CNN Point, Pfizer Counterpoint:

Pfizer Statement on Eminent Domain

[Jennifer]

The ruling argued that elected officials had a greater latitude than you would like in determining public good for eminent domain.
Pretty clearly it would not have allowed eminent domain as retribution. The ruling takes into account corrupt motivations,and it rests on good faith belief in the public good.

How does the ruling take into account corrupt motivation? For that matter, how can you prove corrupt motivation in a court of law? One example O'Connor brought up was "any Motel 6 could be condemned to make way for a Ritz-Carlton."

If I'm on the City Council, and I'm voting to get rid of a Motel 6 and put up a Ritz, but I'm doing this only because I hate the Motel 6 owner, how exactly are you going to prove that, short of finding a memo in which I clearly wrote "Boy, that'll show that motel-owning sonofabitch a thing or two, won't it?"

Furthermore, one reason the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution as they did was so that people would be protected by the government even if it is currently full of members who are NOT acting in good faith. You may as well say "Do away with the whole Bill of Rights; we don't need them, since our government will surely act toward us in good faith."

[Jennifer]

in my mind, if you respect private property rights so much, then prove it by respecting souter's.

If your opponent fights dirty, you'll never win by fighting clean.

[downstater]

If your opponent fights dirty, you'll never win by fighting clean.

i'm sorry, but i just don't subscribe to that.

thankfully, neither did mlk. neither did gandhi.

(no i am not comparing myself to them - but their example is worth following)

[Dave W.]

Not really. The ruling argued that elected officials had a greater latitude than you would like in determining public good for eminent domain.
Pretty clearly it would not have allowed eminent domain as retribution. The ruling takes into account corrupt motivations,and it rests on good faith belief in the public good.

Presumably Souter will get the benefit of any anti-corruption and anti-retribution safeguards, if any, that would be Constitutionally required. If he really had a good faith belief in the public good when he ruled, then he should be cool as a cuke, now because he has been briefed on all the safeguards that he is now about to enjoy from the protected class vantagepoint. On the other hand, if the safeguards fail, then Justice Souter needs to re-think his previous good faith belief in the public good. Its win-win!

[fyodor]

My how the tables have turned now that a different ox is being gored! Jennifer, your comment about fighting dirty cause the other guy could come straight out of an internal memo at the Pentagon or Justice Dept justifying tortue against terrorists!

As far as making a public official be affected by his own decision, the problem is with the "making" part. Okay, you didn't use that word, but that's clearly what's going on here. And besides, that kind of stuff can always go both ways. Maybe the other side should force someone who voted the other way to lose police protection because his or her community couldn't get the additional taxes because of restraints on emminent domaain condemnations? Okay, that's a little bit more of a stretch, but not much. Two can play this game, and it's a crappy game, and it really doesn't prove anything. It's not (drum roll please) REASON!!

[crimethink]

likewise, i don't find empathy to be a requirement for creating legislation or developing a judgment. if this is what we require, then all those men on the scotus will have a hard time ruling on any abortion decision.

The would-be mother is not the only party with interests in an abortion decision. Each justice on the Court, and each of us as well, was once in a position to be aborted, after all.

[ChicagoTom]

if they are tailoring a point to resonate with the common man, then i find it to be a pandering one at best.

And in the history of American politics pandering is a failing strategy??? American's LOVE pandering. That's why politicians do it all the time. Just look at "Justice Sunday".

i just find this to be a hypocritical form of protest

I dunno if I would consider it hypocrisy. The basic point seems to be "well since you find that this is a completely appropriate taking, then you wont object when its your property being taken" To me, that isn't hypocritical. It's proving a point. It may be a petty or childish way, by some peoples standards, but they aren't pretending to believe in something that they don't really believe in. They are just using the tools that have been found to be legal.

It seems to me that the only objection here comes from this group's motivation. What if the motivation where strictly a financial one, and they werent trying to prove a point? Of course the taking would be opposed by most / all here, but would you still be holding them to some kind of higher moral standard if they were merely being opportunistic capitalists who were taking advantage of the Kelo decision and it really just happened that Mr. Souters property were in the way?

[fyodor]

It's proving a point.

No, it doesn't prove anything. The reason, as I stated previously, is that the other side could just as easily (well, almost as easily, it's logistically a little more difficult) turn the tables on this line of reasoning. That deflates the significance of this for two reasons. One is that you are assuming that Kelo type takings are an inherent wrong. If one doesn't think that, then what does taking Souter's home prove? Well, that brings us straight to reason two. That this is being done for intentionally flimsy reasons! So it's not really the same situation as Kelo. There's pros and cons to every public policy or potential public policy. This is like taking a politician's publicly supported health care away to show how evil it would be to eliminate Medicare or Medicaid, which again, would prove nothing.

[Stevo Darkly]

Is the protest hypocritical, or is it calculated to expose hypocrisy?

From Souter's vote, we can conclude that he would not object if his property were taken in a similar manner. If it's all good, then why would he object just because it's his own proprty in questin? In effect, he has publicly agreed to relinquish his right to his property if it were to be taken from him under similar circumstances. He clearly sees this as legal and just.

We as libertarians might disagree with regards to our property -- but we should also respect Souter's right to hold a different attitude toward his own property. And there is no reason not to proceed in accordance with Souter's own telegraphed attituded toward his property.

If Souter does object to the taking under eminent domain simply because it's his property, then he is the one being hypocritical.

This smells like justice to me.

[downstater]

crimethink,

admittedly not a perfect analogy, but my point remains that an empathy or even an experience with the outcome of legislation or a judgment is not a requirement, imo, for rendering them.

ChicagoTom,

of course pandering is not a losing strategy, that does not make it admirable and neither is it particularly clever.

i find the hypocrisy in their willingness to violate someone's property rights in their efforts to institute a greater respect for them. their actions don't communicate a true respect of property rights to me.

if economic development is viewed by these people as poor grounds for taking private property, then i would hope that proving a political point is just as shaky a foundation. apparently it is perfectly kosher.

[fyodor]

Is the protest hypocritical, or is it calculated to expose hypocrisy?

Those two things are not mutually exclusive!

In effect, he has publicly agreed to relinquish his right to his property if it were to be taken from him under similar circumstances.

Except that it's clearly not similar circumstances. Y'know, if the issue were whether emminent domain takings were legitimate under any circumstances, this might make more sense. But as long as part of the process is to distinguish between various motives and interests of the state, the reasoning behind doing this falls flat on its face.

we should also respect Souter's right to hold a different attitude toward his own property.

Stevo, you joke a lot, so I hope I'm taking you too seriously here to point out that that's incredibly disengenuous. Taking someone's property is coercive no matter what that person's "attitude" about his property is!

If Souter does object to the taking under eminent domain simply because it's his property, then he is the one being hypocritical.

Again, that he may be hypocritical does not preclude the perpetrators of this taking and their supporters from being every bit as much so. And again as well, since this is being done clearly as a personal vendetta, that it is his property is clearly not the only difference. In fact, I would say that even if he opposed the taking of his property under circumstances much closer to those in Kelo it would still not be clearly hypocrisy, not unless he changed the nature of his reasoning. Otherwise he could always claim the circumstances were different, since there's always differences in any two set of circumstances. With this situation, the difference is quite clear.

[alkali]

Jennifer writes:

How does the ruling take into account corrupt motivation? For that matter, how can you prove corrupt motivation in a court of law?

This actually happened in the Dover creationism case not that long ago. The issue there was not whether the school board members pushing intelligent design had a "corrupt motivation" but whether their intent was to push religion. That was demonstrated with documentary evidence and testimony in the normal way.

In this case, it would be staggeringly easy to demonstrate that the motivation of the Lost Liberty group was retributive as regards Justice Souter: they have made many public statements to that effect.

However, suppose for purposes of argument that the group was called something like the New Hampshire Tourism Development Group, Inc. and they staunchly denied that their interest in Souter's property had anything to do with Kelo, but Souter nevertheless suspected that this was an attempt at retribution for his Kelo decision. He could still ask: (1) Was the group looking for property in the area before the Kelo decision? (2) What other parcels have they looked at? (3) Are there any comparable parcels in the area, and if so, have they made offers to those property owners? (4) When did they start planning this project? The answers to those questions are objective facts that could tend to show the motivation of the group was retributive.

[fyodor]

crimethink,

Regarding the abortion thing, your point certainly raises the question of what degree of empathy one requires to be an official empathizer! But y'know, there's a lot of people (including men as well as women!) who think it's inherently immoral for men to rule against abortion for the very reason that they are not directly involved. I'm firmly pro-legal abortion myself, but I've never bought the argument that men should not be allowed to legislate or speak against abortion. The idea you raise, that it's okay because men could have been aborted, is amusing, but I really don't think it would sway anyone who takes the position I've described.

[Jennifer]

My how the tables have turned now that a different ox is being gored! Jennifer, your comment about fighting dirty cause the other guy could come straight out of an internal memo at the Pentagon or Justice Dept justifying tortue against terrorists!

Indeed it could, by anyone damnfool enough to equate eminent domain abuse with torture and murder. I hope the people who post here are smarter than that.

[fyodor]

In this case, it would be staggeringly easy to demonstrate that the motivation of the Lost Liberty group was retributive as regards Justice Souter: they have made many public statements to that effect.

Thank you alkali. I don't think the Lost Liberty group is really taking themselves very seriously in this endeavor, which may relieve them of the charge of hypocrisy, but I think it lends itself to the image of juvenality (assuming that's a word!).

Of course, sigh, I don't claim to be an expert on public relations. Maybe this is helpful by raising awareness of the matter. Ultimately, the only proof is in the pudding, ie how the public reacts to it. But my gut reaction is that it looks juvenile, hypocritical and nutty, and so I'm saying so.

[fyodor]

Indeed it could, by anyone damnfool enough to equate eminent domain abuse with torture and murder.

Jennifer, the value of an analogy does not rely on every aspect of the two things being compared being similar. That torture and murder are worse than eminent domain abuse has about zero to do with my point. If eminent domain abuse was not considered bad at all, none of this would even be an issue, would it? Hopefully folks here are smarter than that.

[Jennifer]

If eminent domain abuse was not considered bad at all, none of this would even be an issue, would it?

It also wouldn't be called "abuse", methinks.

[Jennifer]

By the way, instead of turning Souter's place into a hotel, they should turn it into something like a SuperFuntimeKidZone. That way, they're not only bringing economic benefits in the form of greater tax revenues, but they're doing it for the children too.

[fyodor]

Jennifer,

The Pentagon and Justice Department could just as easily point out that the stakes are much higher in the matter of fighting terrorists, making their desire to fight fire with fire even more applicable than it is in the matter before us. The principle remains the same.

I should add that I would not categorically rule out the idea that one should sometimes do this. Only that as a categorical justification it is quite lame and quite ironic coming from those would would clearly reject the notion under different circumstances.

[fyodor]

It also wouldn't be called "abuse", methinks.

I hope you're joking. In lieu of that, I say your semantic quibbling could not be any more trivial than it is here.

[Jennifer]

Fyodor, the issue here is eminent domain not for public use, but a vague "public benefit" which can include higher tax revenue. And Souter is NOT paying as much tax as would a business on his spot; since he thinks condemning houses for tax purposes is perfectly constitutional, he should have no beef with these people. Surely Souter would not try and step in the way of the public benefit, would he?

Unless, of course, he is an "ED for thee but not for me" hypocrite.

Only one way to find out. I hope this project succeeds, and if it does I will definitely drive up to New Hampshire of a weekend and stay in said hotel.

[thoreau]

If every libertarian makes a reservation at the hotel, that would be enough revenue to keep them in business for at least a week!

[Douglas Fletcher]

Oh come of it fyodor. We should only hope this kind of thing would happen more often. So a judge gives a child molester a light sentence and the parole board lets him out of prison early for good behavior -- surely none of them will mind letting him live in their neighborhood for a while as he adjusts to his new life, will they?

Of course that never happens -- lawmakers & judges are so often insulated from the consequences of the laws & decisions they make. This Liberty Hotel Project to me is almost like divine justice -- it's so seldom these bastards ever get the table turned on them and have to personally face the consequences of their decisions.

[downstater]

i really don't know if souter is hypocritical on the subject or not.

however, the organizers seem to be displaying a "property rights for everyone, unless we've got a point to make" style of hypocrisy.

successfully taking souter's home and building a hotel would not be a success for property rights. it would wither them away further, and the organizers would be accomplice to that.

but hey, at least souter gets his medicine, right?

[Jennifer]

however, the organizers seem to be displaying a "property rights for everyone, unless we've got a point to make" style of hypocrisy.

No, the point is "if lawmakers were actually effected by the laws they pass, maybe they wouldn't be so quick to pass them."

[downstater]

No, the point is "if lawmakers were actually effected by the laws they pass, maybe they wouldn't be so quick to pass them."

exactly, they have a point to make. and they will violate another's rights, by their very own standard, to make it.

do we now require lawmakers and judges to have standing before doing their jobs?

[downstater]

besides, we normally - and rightly - prefer our judges to recuse themselves when presented with a conflict of interest.

[independent worm]

C'mon Souter, take one for the team.

[Jennifer]

besides, we normally - and rightly - prefer our judges to recuse themselves when presented with a conflict of interest.

In that case, any Supreme Court justice who owns real estate should have sat the Kelo decision out.

[thoreau]

downstater-

I guess it depends on whether they want to send a message or get revenge. If they just want to teach a lesson and do in fact care about property rights then they might relent at some point, once the process has gone far enough to illustrate the dangers. If, OTOH, they want revenge, they'll go all the way.

My suspicion is that this will never get far enough for us to learn their true motivation.

[downstater]

owning real estate in an eminent domain decision is not any more of a conflict of interest then being a living person presiding over a murder trial.

the argument i'm hearing is that judges should have to directly feel the effects of the decisions they make.

i assume this only applies when the decisions are bad for the judge personally. because when they make decisions that personally benefit them, there isn't so much support for such things.

can they seem out of touch at times? yeah sure, but i'd rather have a judiciary with less of a stake in the outcomes then one clouded by their personal conflicts of interest.

[Bonar Law]

If this thing about taking Souter's home was just a few articles in the *Onion* and other satirical publications, plus a few crank calls to the Weare city government, then it would qualify as an amusing practical joke.

The link in this post, however, shows that the Lost Liberty people are trying to put an actual agenda item before the Weare Town Meeting involving taking Souter's house.

http://www.freestarmedia.com/images/BallotInitiative.pdf

There has to be a time when a practical joke ceases to be funny. They have reached this point. If they're actually trying to take away Souter's property, then what is the basis for doing so?

Can we appoint ourselves "hypocrisy police" and violate the rights of people we believe to be hypocrites? Shouldn't we examine ourselves first to see if *we* have any hypocrisy? Mutual accusations of hypocrisy, metahypocrisy, call it what you will -- it's grown so common in politics that it's beginning to be boring.

[Jennifer]

If they're actually trying to take away Souter's property, then what is the basis for doing so?

To improve the local economy by expanding the town's tax base, of course. Which, Justice Souter has ruled, is a perfectly legitimate reason to take a person's home away, even when he'd rather keep it.

[alkali]

And Souter is NOT paying as much tax as would a business on his spot ...

Query whether this is true. Suppose you plunked down a big luxury hotel in the middle of rural New Hampshire. Would that hotel pay more or less in taxes than the equivalent amount of residential/agricultural real estate?

It's a trick question: in that location, such a hotel could never support a revenue stream sufficient to maintain the building let alone keep up the debt service. The hotel would go broke almost immediately and wouldn't pay any taxes. It would be unsaleable, and would decay until the local authority spent money to tear it down so that the land was useable for some other purpose.

The larger point here is that it is not reasonable to believe that local authorities would use ED power in an entirely irrational fashion. Economic constraints still apply, in addition to the ordinary political checks.

[By way of comparison, suppose that there was a genuine constitutional question about whether local governments can assess and collect taxes (there isn't, by the way), and the Supreme Court resolved that question in the affirmative. It would not be a valid criticism of that decision to say, "Hey, what if a local government collected a billion dollars per person and used the money to pave the streets with chocolate donuts?", because there's no reasonable chance of that ever happening. Similarly, hypothetical arguments of the form "Hey, what if the city used ED to take away the remote to your TV?" are best not contemplated unstoned.]

[Bonar Law]

"'If they're actually trying to take away Souter's property, then what is the basis for doing so?'

"To improve the local economy by expanding the town's tax base, of course. Which, Justice Souter has ruled, is a perfectly legitimate reason to take a person's home away, even when he'd rather keep it."

What I was trying to say was: what's the basis for limited-government, anti-*Kelo* types taking Souter's house? "Bringing the ED war home," I suppose you might call it. But with all the talk about hypocrisy -- another basis for taking Souter's house, as I understand it -- who among us is pure of heart and free of hypocrisy? If we can take the houses of hypocrites, property rights have become very tenuous indeed.

[thoreau]

Everybody's worrying about whether a protest is philosophically acceptable or not. I would say that as long as they don't go all the way, as long as they pull back at some point and let him keep his house, they aren't actually hurting him.

Protests aren't supposed to be exercises in philosophical correctness. Protests are supposed to illustrate a point in a thought-provoking manner. If they contain an element of irony, humor, and maybe even some bad karma, so much the better.

As long as they pull back at the end, and don't actually destroy his house, they will have provided a sobering and very karmic lesson on a matter of real significance.

[thoreau]

In other words, the joke is still funny as long as nobody gets hurt. As long as they pull their punch and don't actually boot him out of his house, the joke is funny. They should take it as far as possible to illustrate the point, but stop before the point of no return.

[Jennifer]

I disagree, Thoreau. I'd like them to take hs house, and then take the houses of every other justice who voted with the majority in Kelo.

If I'd been alive when segregation was the law of the Southland I would have completely opposed those laws, but at the same time if I discovered that a vocal, pro-segregationist white man was actually some sort of mulatto I damn sure would have brought this to everyone's attention and made the segregationist sit in the back of the bus.

[Bonar Law]

Yes, if they actually get to where they have the power to take Souter's house, and then refuse to do so, accompanied by a speech about why it would be wrong, then that would be a wonderful outcome and a great piece of theater.

More likely, they will run into some legal snag, and having lost the ED battle, they won't be in a position to be that magnanimous. If they say they never wanted to seize Souter's house anyway, that may be dismissed as sour grapes. The point of the stunt may be lost, and the next thing you know Souter is accepting a Profiles in Courage award for "standing up to anti-government extremists who harassed him in his own home."

One extra point, although since Souter is a judicial activist the point is somewhat attenuated: There are perfectly good federalism grounds for federal courts staying out of ED disputes under state law. We shouldn't get into the habit of harassing judges for upholding laws, even bad laws, because that would be to pressure judges into activism.

[Jennifer]

There are perfectly good federalism grounds for federal courts staying out of ED disputes under state law.

You could just as easily say there are federalist grounds for not interfering when states try to pass laws abolishing freedom of religion. The Constitution is supposed to apply to all citizens regardless of what state they live in.

[thoreau]

Jennifer-

The difference in your example is that once his status is discovered the law would be running on autopilot. After you bring the hypocrisy to light you don't really have any way to avoid what happens next.

With ED, the law is applied selectively, and so this particular injustice can in fact be stopped before it's too late. He doesn't have to lose his house for the practical joke to illustrate a point.

[Jennifer]

With ED, the law is applied selectively, and so this particular injustice can in fact be stopped before it's too late.

All the more reason to ensure that those with the power to stop this are the ones to lose their homes--otherwise, it's too easy for them to shrug and figure it doesn't matter, since they are not the ones who would be hurt.

[Bonar Law]

"State Rep. Neal Kurk, a Republican from Weare, is sponsoring two proposed amendments to the state constitution that would limit eminent domain seizures to taking land for public use, such as building highways, and require higher payments to the former property owners."

This seems a much better response that taking Souter's house. A state legislator from Souter's hometown wants a law against what Souter upheld! Plus, this would be a state constitutional amendment, avoiding the federalism problems.

[downstater]

thoreau,

there are practical problems, not just philosophical ones. i mentioned it earlier about the further disrespect for property rights.

take Douglas Fletcher's emotionally charged analogy about a child molester. let's say that the scotus had ruled that child molestation is not unconstitutional. a group of citizens - outraged at the decision - decides to molest souter's child. "hooray!" they say, "now souter know's how it feels to be on the wrong side of his decision!" all the while losing sight of the fact that another child has been molested.

the success of this protest (actually condemning souter's home) will certainly be a good feeling for the pissed off masses, but another person's property rights have still been violated in a manner that is found to be outrageous. and that is a real problem.

[Stevo Darkly]

Darn it, fyodor -- why'd you have to get all smart on us?

I was not planning on doing any real thinking here today.

I do like thoreau's idea of pursuing the ED and then letting Souter keep his house at the last minute.

Of course, if that were the protestors'intentions, they would still have to act as if they fully intended to take Souter's property up to the very last minute, or the protest would be totally ineffectual.

[Jennifer]

take Douglas Fletcher's emotionally charged analogy about a child molester. let's say that the scotus had ruled that child molestation is not unconstitutional. a group of citizens - outraged at the decision - decides to molest souter's child. "hooray!" they say, "now souter know's how it feels to be on the wrong side of his decision!" all the while losing sight of the fact that another child has been molested.

The problem with that analogy is that the child in question is NOT the one who perpetrated the injustice, so you're talking about punishing an innocent person over this. Souter, in regards to ED for tax purposes, is NOT innocent.

[downstater]

okay, substitute for child molestation any other personal crime to be committed against souter. the point isn't the sweetness of the target - the point should be stopping the crime.

souter's innocence or guilt in the matter is really only pertinent if the sole point of the protest is to punish souter.

if the goal is to promote the safeguarding of property rights, then he is a citizen who's property has been taken for suspect reasons. consequently, the protest is detrimental to it's own cause.

i certainly hope that the goal is not to personally punish judges for rulings we don't like, because that is a scary precedent, imo, no matter how immediately satisfying.

[Jennifer]

okay, substitute for child molestation any other personal crime to be committed against souter. the point isn't the sweetness of the target - the point should be stopping the crime.

I don't know if "crime" is the right analogy here to make at all, but if Souter were to rule that it's not a crime to rape a man, then hell yes, I'd hope he'd end up raped every day for the rest of his life, or until the law were overturned.

But crime analogies don't work here; it's a matter of the Constitution being interpreted in ways that don't provide the protections originally intended. If, for example, Souter ruled that forcing people to attend church didn't take away their freedom of religion because they were still free to spend their non-church time worshipping as they pleased, I'd have no problem with forcing Souter himself to attend a church he didn't believe in.

[anomdebus]

CNN Point, Pfizer Counterpoint:

Pfizer Statement on Eminent Domain

Comment by: Dobbo at January 23, 2006 12:33 PM

Perhaps not very original, but I find it amusing that Pfizer releases a statement saying ED was not part of their plans.

[Jennifer]

i certainly hope that the goal is not to personally punish judges for rulings we don't like, because that is a scary precedent, imo, no matter how immediately satisfying.

You say "punish"; I say "forced to live with the fallout of what they've done." If the Supreme Court's reasoning is correct, this is not a punishment, but an attempt to enrich the city tax coffers. Just as Suzette Kelo wasn't being punished by having her home condemned.

[wayne]

The best way to change a bad law is to enforce it. If Souter and the other Supremes think ED is legal (and they do) then why should they not be "victimized" by it?

Hell, I think we should move to condemn the property everybody involved in this corrupt business:
a. the developers who bribe the politicians.
b. the politicians who take the bribes.
c. the judges who ignore private property rights and hand private property to others for non-public use.

[fyodor]

Wayne,

Hell, I think we should move to condemn the property everybody involved in this corrupt business

But since you've decided to be involved in this dirty business yourself, you deserve to have your property condemend as well.

And the same would go for Jennifer.

But hey, that's only by your logic, which I don't condone.

[Bonar Law]

"You could just as easily say there are federalist grounds for not interfering when states try to pass laws abolishing freedom of religion. The Constitution is supposed to apply to all citizens regardless of what state they live in."

Bearing in mind that the first word of the First Amendment is "Congress," the religion example isn't such a *reductio ad absurdam* (sp?) as you suggest.

[Mike Laursen]

Oh, my god. Fyodor's arguments are a perfect example of purist libertarians being completely incapable of doing anything to actually advance liberty. The "Lost Liberty Hotel" idea is funny, has gotten some press, and has made a point. Get a sense of humor.

[kevrob]

I think that the Lost Liberty Hotel gang is motivated by this sentiment of George Mason's:

V That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judicative; and, that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections in which all, or any part of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.

Virginia Declaration of Rights

This argument was used frequently in the debate over term limits. If individuals are able to start careers as legislators or governors and spend an unbroken string of years in office, they will start behaving in a manner like unto a separate class, much as the old nobility used to. Now, we do specifically create people federal judges and SCOTUS justices for life, in order to insulate them from political pressure, but they aren't supposed to be super-legislators, either. I would much rather persuade Our Robed Elite to cut back on exercising judicial review as if they were philosopher kings, but I am starting to consider whether we ought not amend the Constitution to take into account our much extended longevity. Perhaps a 20-year term for a Justice would be a nice change. But I digress. If Mr. Souter and his ilk persist in treating the highest court in the land like it was a legislative body, then we mere citizens will have to start thinking of ways to constrain their wilder fancies.

Kevin

[joshua corning]

If they get to the point of actually buying the property i will donate cash...and i also hope they go all the way and kick the bum out on the street.

[wayne]

"But since you've decided to be involved in this dirty business yourself, you deserve to have your property condemend as well.

And the same would go for Jennifer.

But hey, that's only by your logic, which I don't condone."

They CAN take my property and Jennifer's too, and yours and Souter's. Whether you condone it is irrelevant because the Supremes condone it. That is the point of the "Lost Liberty Hotel", and that is why it is such a grand idea. I want to book a room for the first weekend they are open so I can piss off the balconey onto what used to be Souter's study. Maybe with a few condemnations and takings of this magnitude and from people with this much influence, they will suddenly see the benefit of property rights.

[James Feldman]

I think we are mistaking the intent here. If Souter had ruled in Kelo out of a desire to see people's homes seized by the state, then perhaps the appropriate revenge would be to take his house as well. But Souter's ruling is based on his views of logic and the law. Since that is the standard, I think we ought to counter it with superior reason and knowledge of the law.

What Souter did was not done out of malicious intent, at least I highly doubt it was. Therefore, I agree with fyodor that it is, well, incorrect to counter with malicious intent.

[Jennifer]

What Souter did was not done out of malicious intent, at least I highly doubt it was. Therefore, I agree with fyodor that it is, well, incorrect to counter with malicious intent.

If your home is being taken away, who the hell cares whether or not the intent was malicious? I doubt Suzette Kelo and Wilhelmina Dery do.

[James Feldman]

I care, particularly since the issue is the willingness to pursue malicious redress.

[independent worm]

They CAN take my property and Jennifer's too, and yours and Souter's. Whether you condone it is irrelevant because the Supremes condone it. That is the point of the "Lost Liberty Hotel",...

Ding ding ding!!! We have a winner!

The law already exists. fyodor seems to be comparing this to non-violent resistance, where you'd say "but if we're going to kill the oppressors, are we not just stooping to their level"? This is a non-violent protest that involves nothing more than applying the existing precent set forth by the SCOTUS. They aren't making up any new laws and they aren't hurting anyone. It is a creative, non-violent means by which to highlight not only the absurdity of the Kelo decision, but also to underscore how easy it is to abuse the ED power post-Kelo.

The hordes will much more likely grok the destructive power of Kelo, and the pandora's box of corruption that it opens up, if a stunt like this is successful, and will agitate against it.

If you want to say "yeah, but they already are, so this is pointless" you might be right. But as it is, I find this harmless.

[Dar]

Fuck Souter! If he has a problem with it now he should have taken that into account before passing judgement. Whats good for the goose ya know. I think we should be doing this with every aspect of law these idiots crank out to rule us with and then never have to live up to themselves.

Perhaps if we started calling in drug tips on local politicians and their families and have their doors kicked in and a few shot and killed something might be done to stop the insanity of the WoD.

Until you have to deal with what you yourself serve up to others you have no real identifing basis on which to make your decisions. Let a group of Task Force members kick in your door at 3am and shoot your wife or kid than all of a sudden it takes on a whole new perspective.

Otherwise just keep bending over and getting the no lube ream job by these fucks. Then smile and ask when your next reaming is coming because believe me its coming soon. After all you seemed to have enjoyed all the other countless reamings over the years why would they stop now?

Unfortunetly this is the only way most laws are made for good or bad of the general public. Some politcian gets a wild hair over something because one of HIS family members had a problem etc so all of a sudden we need a new law or need to reform an old one. That same politician was just fine with the law until... DRUM ROLL PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE The law was counter productive to him or his family.

Do to others as they do to you. If I was a judge that forced someone to move from their home for a corporation to take it over I would have the thought in the back of my head that that individual might just want to burn down my house or kill me. I would be right to think that way too after doing such a thing.

I hope their is justice for the Justice. His own personal brand of justice. The kind that involves looking for a new place to live!

[Dar]

James Feldman - "But Souter's ruling is based on his views of logic and the law. Since that is the standard, I think we ought to counter it with superior reason and knowledge of the law."

Well my view of logic is if you take a swing at me I don't sit around trying to counter it with superior anything except a return swing. To say we ought to counter with superior reason and knowledge of the law is to assume you or anyone else can tell you what the law says to begin with.

Once you use the word Interpretation all bets are off and someone is fixing to be fucked. How about using words like definitive or precisely.

Hell the word Interpretation by its very own definition is open to interpretation. If you can debate interpretations to a final conclusion then why are these things always up for further interpretation?

Could it be because no one knows what the fuck anything says due to how its written? Or could it be becuase it was written by a group that wants to have the open ended policy of never ending interpretations?