Out-****ing-ragious!!!

[schmosef]

from coxandforkum.com

[Dr Mordrid]

HAHHHH!!!!

Remember the "liberal-swing" vote Justice David Souter that came down in favor of the takings? Seems there's now a move to take some property of HIS;

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB)

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."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

Gotta love the spunk of these people

Dr. Mordrid

[cjolley]

I'm sure there will be even more of that coming down the pike.
They will be forced to clarify pretty quickly.
Developers and Local Governments are in each other's pockets in many if not most communities.
And real estate developers are some of the most selfish, rapacious people around.
I say again, this will be abused so quickly and so blatantly that it's just going to bounce right back up to the Court.

[Dr Mordrid]

What it most certainly will do is modify the debate over any new SC nominees. Up to now the liberals had a leg up because of their activism and could therefore block many conservative nominees, but with this kind of issue crystalizing things.....

EDIT:

This extra tidbit was just posted on CNN;

The letter was passed along to the board of selectmen. If the five-member board were to endorse the hotel project, zoning laws would have to be changed and the hotel would have to get approval from the planning board. Messages seeking comment were left with Laura Buono, board chairwoman.

"Am I taking this seriously? But of course," said Charles Meany, Weare's code enforcement officer. "In lieu of the recent Supreme Court decision, I would imagine that some people are pretty much upset. If it is their right to pursue this type of end, then by all means let the process begin."

Souter's two-story colonial farmhouse is assessed at a little more than $100,000 and brought in $2,895 in property taxes last year.

As the Klingons say; "Revenge is a dish best served cold"

Of course Pierre de LaClos beat 'em to it in Les Liasons Dangereuses, but that's another matter

Dr. Mordrid

[cjolley]

What it most certainly will do is modify the debate over any new SC nominees. Up to now the liberals had a leg up because of their activism and could therefore block many conservative nominees, but with this kind of issue crystalizing things.....

I doubt it.
Do you think liberals are going to jump up and down for a nominee who they see as intent on taking away many civil rights, just because the court went off the tracks on this one?
Why would they do that?
The nominee will not be replacing any of the justices on the majority of this ruling anyway.

The main problem with this ruling is not that they got it wrong in this particular case.
They probably got it right.
Which would have been fine if they were a lower court.
If you read the ruling it doesn't sound like a guide for other courts to follow, it sounds like a ruling on the facts.
That's not what the SC usualy does.

One does wonder why they took this particular case in the first place.

[Nowhere]

http://www.monkeylaw.org/

[GT98]

I'm sure there will be even more of that coming down the pike.
They will be forced to clarify pretty quickly.
Developers and Local Governments are in each other's pockets in many if not most communities.
And real estate developers are some of the most selfish, rapacious people around.
I say again, this will be abused so quickly and so blatantly that it's just going to bounce right back up to the Court.

You should see some of the shit thats going on in New Jersey over this very issue. The FBI raid serveral local goverment offices and 2 Mayors are on the hot seat over this and kickback they've gotten.

[Podfrog]

i disagree. i think the supreme court did get this one wrong. it is conceivable to take certain properties in degraded areas and "revitalize" them. yet this was not the case, nor [as it turns out] even at issue. the community in question [situated on the waterfront area of new london, conn.], it is argued, was not a bad neighborhood, therefore making it unjustifiable to take the land for public good. but the issue was decided, as stated on oyez.org summary of the ruling, because the pfizer facility would help the economy, therefore, even though the land was not being taken to be used by the public [as is the case with roads and power lines], the assumed economic benefit would be in the public good [yeah, since this worked out so well for pittsburgh]. out-****ing-ragious indeed.

[cjolley]

...
Welcome to one of the real reasons we need more strict constructionists on the Supreme Court. Abortion , flag burning etc. etc. are all a sideshow compared to issues such as these.

Dr. Mordrid

Of course "Strict Construction", like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Be carefull of what you ask for, if you really got it, you might not like it.

[Umfriend]

So how's it going with this, is it still a debat ein the US atm?

[KvHagedorn]

Debate when one is powerless is just mental masturbation. That's all this thread has been.

[Dr Mordrid]

Actually that's not correct.

It's being addressed legislatively. There are bills in Congress and many State Houses to reign in cities who are doing these kinds of takings.

The bill in Congress is the most likely to provide real relief. This because Congress controlls the jurisdiction of all Federal courts, including the Supreme Court.

If Congress passes legislation saying the Supreme Court has has no jurisdiction over takings then they more strictly define the rules that's that.

Dr. Mordrid

[Dilitante1]

HAHHHH!!!!

Remember the "liberal-swing" vote Justice David Souter that came down in favor of the takings? Seems there's now a move to take some property of HIS;


Gotta love the spunk of these people

Dr. Mordrid

His property isn't going anywhere. It was in the papers that the selectmen decided that his property wasn't worth the battle/takeover for the project. (looking for links now)

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050819/NEWS0201/108190159&SearchID=73219522628309

[Umfriend]

But that link also states that they're trying to do it via another route now. Assuming it's just Mr. Souters' family living on those 8 acres, it seems clear to me it must be a dumphole and it is in dire economic need, which can be alleviated by exploiting it. Tax revenue will sky-rocket. Tax revenue that can be used to further the community.

I'm sure I'm simplifying things here, but still....it IS funny.

[cjolley]

...
It's being addressed legislatively. There are bills in Congress and many State Houses to reign in cities who are doing these kinds of takings.
...

Isn't that what the majority said could be done in it's opinion?