All I want is Justice... Souter's House


PDA






Lummox
January 24, 2006, 02:13 AM
In case any of you are interested, you should check out this website. www.natural-rights.org (http://www.natural-rights.org) . It is a group that is positioning to take Justice David Souter's Farmhouse on the premis of applying the Kelo v. City of New London decision from this past summer.

The group has a Warrant Article that will be coming up for town vote in March. It will be given to the Weare Voters to vote to take Justice Souter's House. The group is going door to door from now until March to get the word out to the residents.

Local Paper (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060122/REPOSITORY/601220395/1037/NEWS04)

http://www.natural-rights.org/images/34CilleyRd-Street.jpg

If you enjoyed reading about "All I want is Justice... Souter's House" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
SomeKid
January 24, 2006, 02:27 AM
Love the idea, but doesn't Souter have a couple of homes?

Koobuh
January 24, 2006, 03:50 AM
Then perhaps we should keep taking them. -five years later- ... his cardboard box would make an excellent spot for a hotdog stand, don't you think?

The-Fly
January 24, 2006, 03:51 AM
BAWAHAHAHAH, thats CLASSIC!

Kharn
January 24, 2006, 08:27 AM
Owned. :neener:

Kharn

Michigander
January 24, 2006, 09:08 AM
And he goes along with it and is compensated justly.

Then he snubs his nose and tells the nation, "See, even I have no problem with eminent domain when it benefits the community. So now all you whiners can just shut up about it!"

Then what?

Two wrongs . . .

Dannyboy
January 24, 2006, 09:11 AM
I have to agree with Michigander. As much as I would like to see it happen, all that would do is validate the SC's heinous decision. Besides, there were at least 4 others that voted with him.

Live Free Or Die
January 24, 2006, 10:09 AM
Besides, there were at least 4 others that voted with him.

True. But Souter wrote the eloquent, property-rights-trashing opinion of the majority, did he not? Whether or not this tactic is a good one, he's certainly fair game.

Igloodude
January 24, 2006, 10:17 AM
I have to agree with Michigander. As much as I would like to see it happen, all that would do is validate the SC's heinous decision. Besides, there were at least 4 others that voted with him.

And they're going after Stephen Breyer's home in Plainfield, New Hampshire, as well. Unfortunately none of the remaining 3 have property in New Hampshire, so other folks are going to have to deal with them. ;)

Spot77
January 24, 2006, 10:33 AM
Originally Posted by Dannyboy
Besides, there were at least 4 others that voted with him.

That's not stopping anti-gunners in Maryland from trashing State Senator John Gianetti who has been the swing vote against a MD State AWB for the past 2 years. They conveniently forget that five other people on the Judicial Proceedings Commitee voted against it also.


What's good for the gander is good for the goose.

Sergeant Bob
January 24, 2006, 01:59 PM
And he goes along with it and is compensated justly.

Then he snubs his nose and tells the nation, "See, even I have no problem with eminent domain when it benefits the community. So now all you whiners can just shut up about it!"
+1

Justin
January 24, 2006, 03:09 PM
They should have the area declared as being "blighted" before going forward with ED on his house. That way Souter would only get a fraction of what it's actually worth.

Hey, it worked for the Norwood City Council. (http://www.reason.com/sullum/011806.shtml)

If you enjoyed reading about "All I want is Justice... Souter's House" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!