January 22, 2006
Souter to be Homeless?
In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court decided that city's could "take" private property to give to other private individuals if by doing so it improved the tax base. Oh, there were other words tossed about but this is what it boils down to:
In June, Souter joined the 5-4 majority upholding the right of governments to appropriate private property for commercial development.My friend Quick Rob notes, as does the previously cited source that Neal Kurk, a Republican representing Souter's home town of Weare, New Hampshire doesn't think this is a good idea in as much as it might be construed as trying to "intimidate" a federal judge.
Well, Mr. Kurk, first of all, David Souter may be a Supreme Court Justice, but he is still an American and American's have to follow the law of the land. As QR said:
After all, the Justices are not above the law. I don’t know how Neal Kurk justifies the idea of a Supreme court Justice not being subjected to the consequences of his decisions.
But, I have a solution. Judge, sell me your house for a price I can afford. That will take the pressure off of you and decrease the liklihood that the Town will "take" your homestead. Then, when the outcry has settled, I'll sell it back to you for the same price. No, really, I will. I'll look out for your interests to the exact same degree that you looked out for the interests of America's property owners. No problem!
Posted by GM Roper at January 22, 2006 05:46 PMI saw the Lost Liberty Hotel truck coming out of Weare this morning, and had the enjoyment of explaining it to my 4th son.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at January 22, 2006 09:02 PM
It's just absurd that 5 out of 9 judges, sworn to uphold the simple language of the constitution, can't seem to find any protection of property rights there for ordinary citizens when it's quite clearly stated. Yet they found the word "privacy" - implied. Fat lot of good O'Connor's swing vote did, huh?
We have people screaming and yelling about executive powers as the high court might apply them should "rogues" like Roberts and Alito be appointed, but nary a scurrilous word from them about their beloved Democrats, Breyer and Ginsburg, the only two Democrats on the court, who found for the city of New London.
What's even more appalling is there are only a handful of states scrambling to enact legislation to protect their own citizens after this.
Posted by Oyster at January 23, 2006 05:03 AM
