Souter v. Weare?

A proposal to take Supreme Court Justice David Souter's farmhouse by eminent domain and convert to the "Lost Liberty Hotel" will be brought before the town of Weare, New Hampshire for a vote in March.

The group, led by a California man, wants Justice David Souter's home seized to build an inn called the "Lost Liberty Hotel."

They submitted enough petition signatures - only 25 were needed - to bring the matter before voters in March. This weekend, they're descending on Souter's hometown, the central New Hampshire town of Weare, population 8,500, to rally for support.

This weekend's rally speakers are expected to include homeowners from New London, Connecticut who lost their properties as a result of Kelo v. New London.  Justice Souter voted in favor of New London in that case which redefined the meaning of "public use".  Under the new definition estimates of higher anticipated tax revenues now justify the transfer of private property from one private individual to another by the exercise of eminent domain.  The practical effect is to put the interests of real estate developers above those of homeowners.

State Rep. Neal Kurk, a Weare resident who is sponsoring two pieces of eminent domain legislation in New Hampshire, said he expects the group's proposal to be defeated overwhelmingly.

"Most people here see this as an act of revenge and an improper attack on the judicial system," Kurk said. "You don't go after a judge personally because you disagree with his judgments."

Since I don't live in Weare, I won't get to vote on the proposal, but if I could I would probably vote in favor of it.  I agree with Kurk that it would be an act of revenge, but I see nothing improper about bringing it up for a vote. 

Comments

[David]

This is NOT revenge, this is making the court live under the laws they create for the rest of us. These men in black have no concept of what it is like in the real world. Most of them were Judges for a very long time before becoming Justices. And all of them (that participated in this decision) were on the court more than 12 years. This will be a reminder that they too live under the laws they are writing. Perhaps writing would be too controversial....how about creating out of thin air?

It would be revenge if the people whose land was taken were taking Souter's land. But they are not. IF it is taken, it will be taken under the authority that SOUTER himself created, and taken BY the local government.

Seems fair to me.

[Tom Bowler]

Oh, I think there's an element of revenge in it. But what's wrong with that? Any of us could be affected by his decision. No reason why he shouldn't be, as well.