1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Effort to take Breyer's home moving ahead

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Desertdog, Aug 14, 2005.

  1. Desertdog

    Desertdog Well-Known Member

    Sounds good to me. ;)

    Effort to take Breyer's home moving ahead
    Libertarian Party chief wants public to decide in March

    By Joe Kovacs

    The effort to seize the vacation home of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is moving ahead toward the goal of a public vote in March.

    That according to John Babiarz, chairman of the New Hampshire's Libertarian Party, who appeared tonight on the Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" program.

    "We have every intention of doing the proper petitioning and have the people of Plainfield make the decision," Babiarz said. "We're in the petition-gathering stage right now."

    Babiarz, a 2002 candidate for governor in the Granite State, stressed the seriousness of the issue in the wake of the high court's recent ruling on eminent domain, giving governments the power to transfer private property from one private party to another. The decision ignited a firestorm of outrage across the political spectrum.

    "Property rights are very important," said Babiarz, who would like Breyer's land to become a public park. "It's got to go from talk to action. ... I think the justices don't realize the impact [of their decision]."

    Justice Stephen Breyer

    Justice Breyer, who owns 167 acres in the Connecticut River Valley in Plainfield, N.H., is the second Supreme Court justice to be targeted for property seizure.

    Justice David Souter's home is also in the crosshairs of a California entrepreneur who's looking to build the "Lost Liberty Hotel" on Souter's land in the town of Weare, N.H.

    As WND exclusively reported this week, Breyer made news beyond eminent domain by saying not all rulings from America's highest court are correct, admitting judges don't have "some great special insight," and he defended the practice of studying courts in foreign countries to help decide cases in the United States.
  2. Sergeant Bob

    Sergeant Bob Well-Known Member

    While it's a really cool idea and entertaining to think about, it ain't gonna happen.
  3. ravinraven

    ravinraven Well-Known Member

    "While it's a really cool idea and entertaining to think about, it ain't gonna happen."

    Question: Do you think that the "...ain't gonna happen..." is because NH will enact laws to protect all people there from the PPP [Property Piracy Pimps] or because we have a case of one law for the elite and another for the sheeple?

  4. Brett Bellmore

    Brett Bellmore Well-Known Member

    The latter. The "justices" of the Supreme court are some of the most sheltered people on the face of the planet.
  5. garyk/nm

    garyk/nm Well-Known Member

    Option C;
    This one was destined for failure from the beginning, due to a fatal flaw in reasoning: The stated new purpose (a park) is not going to be higher income producing than it's present use. This issue is not about public use, but rather revenue enhancement.
  6. Jim March

    Jim March Well-Known Member

    But they can get around that problem with a public vote!

    A public vote is EXACTLY what the issue needs, esp. in NH.

    Oh hell yes - GO GUYS!
  7. Taurus 66

    Taurus 66 Well-Known Member

    LOL! My dream come true! It's good to see some of these laws coming back to bite them in the behind. :cool:
  8. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    The founding fathers would be proud.
  9. Zrex

    Zrex Well-Known Member

    Legalized theft is still theft.
  10. Parks bring in money through concessions, admission charges, parking charges, etc.
  11. Flyboy

    Flyboy Well-Known Member

    I agree in general, but I would say this is a slightly different case than mere theft.

    Consider that we don't consider it to be theft when the government takes money or property from a criminal (following a conviction, of course); it's part of his penalty.

    In this case, there is no court in which to try Souter, Breyer, and Pals, save for the Court of Public Opinion. The jury has returned a nearly unanimous verdict, which almost never happens. In this case, since it's the legal system being used--and, more specifically, the method that is the very reason the "accused" are condemned--it could be argued that this is justice, even working within the law.

    It's a stretch, and such arguments need to be watched carefully for signs of rationalization (I'm not sure I'm not just making this up to rationalize my own desire to see them lie in the bed they made), but, carefully applied, this seems like a pretty just thing to do.

    Consider that the Founding Fathers and their contemporaries had no problem with assaulting and executing British soldiers, officials, and similar; vandalizing British property and private property (tea, in one case); and other activities we'd generally denounce as both illegal and morally wrong. Because they were the actions of the oppressed against their oppressors, though, we consider them to be heroic and laudable (that the victors write the history books doesn't hurt a bit).

    It's a sticky issue; while I don't like to see eminent domain used for private gain, I wonder if punishing the guilty for violating the most sacred values of the country doesn't count as a "public use."

    Worth considering, anyway.
  12. Yes, it does. Excellent point.
  13. Brad Johnson

    Brad Johnson Well-Known Member

    Too bad it's a vacation home and not his primary residence.

  14. Hawken50

    Hawken50 Well-Known Member

    and turnabout is fair play.

Share This Page