Supreme Court

[petermarcus]

So, yeah, the Supreme Court ruled that goverments can seize private property and give it to another private group if it means more taxes or some other benefit to the city. I hate it, a lot of people hate it, and we can gripe, gripe, gripe.

Or, we can do what Logan Darrow Clements is doing. He's petitioning the small town of Weare, New Hampshire, to grab a private residence and turn it into a hotel. The residence happens to be owned by David Souter, one of the Supreme Court justices that voted for this decision. Clements says he can bring more taxes and jobs to Weare by kicking Souter out of his house and building the Lost Liberty Hotel.

I'm quite amused.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45029

Comments

[petermarcus.livejournal.com]

It's hard to classify this decision. In a sense, it's pro-business, which tends to be Republican. On the other hand, property rights are sacred to Republicans. The three most conservative judges voted against this, and the liberals actually swung this decision. Very odd overall, I was betting a 8-1 defeat, and look what happened.

[macaholic.livejournal.com]

Even with it being a pro-business decision, it tramples on individual rights to such a degree that only a liberal could like it.

I suspect that, in the future, if a local gov't makes such a decision, and it is close to election time, there is a good chance that those who voted for it could be kicked out of office and the decision reversed...even if the developer were in the middle of the effort. Plus, I suspect, getting a reasonable value may prove difficult, even with court help. I would not want to be the developer in such a situation.

[indighost.livejournal.com]

"it tramples on individual rights to such a degree that only a liberal could like it"
really? I consider myself quite liberal, and hate the idea of individual rights being trampled on... and I know lots of other liberals and don't know any who like this decision... I think it pretty much pissed off everyone.

[macaholic.livejournal.com]

Well, it didn't piss off the liberals on the Supreme Court.

Besides, that was an over the top comment.

apparently

[ryanvt.livejournal.com]

OK, so apparently they were avoiding judicial activism. ie - they interpreted the current law. The ball is in the lawmakers' court. this should actually please the conservatives who don't like judicial activism, right? and -- yeah, let's get the law changed!!

Re: apparently

[macaholic.livejournal.com]

certainly, get the law changed...but interpretation of current law...no, more like extension.