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

[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.