Wednesday, June 29, 2005

READY -- SHOOT -- AIM (?)

The "Kelo-Souter-build a hotel on Souter's land" movement is headed off in the wrong direction at full speed, seems to me. Somewhere in the Constitution of The US of A it talks about the law being applied equally to everybody.

Either you are AGAINST the taking of private private property for use by other non-governmental entities, or you aren't. You can't have it both ways.

If the law is applied equally for all, it shouldn't make any difference WHO the private property belongs to, only that the property is privately owned.

Going off full speed to encourage the taking of Souter's property only supports the court's decision, rather than opposing it, regardless of what you think of Justice Souter.

Don't lose sight of the big picture...............



5 Comments:

At Wednesday, June 29, 2005 4:45:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Negatory, good buddy....the man in Souter's village is fighting back with the only tool at hand.

Put it this way:

If the Supreme Court declared guns to be eeeevil, and condemned all eeeevil peeples to Hell, wouldn't it be appropriate to use the court process to change your name to Armed Devil?

Rivrdog

 
At Wednesday, June 29, 2005 10:33:00 PM, Blogger Jerry The Geek said...

Uh huh. Well, you missed 'er completely on this one, Amigo.

It's a gag. It's a symbolic gesture. Souter's house will never be condemned, never be razed, never be razed by a cheap hostel named the "Lost Liberty Hotel".

The whole point of the schtick is to demonstrate that ANYBODY in this country is in danger of having their property put at risk by a developer, and the local government agreeing to the deal because it advantages their local tax base.

When we enjoy the uncomfortable situation in which Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter finds himself, it's just a matter of shadenfreude.

Oh, and perhaps a wee small hope that the constitutionally bogus situation which he signed off on impresses him as a rilly BAD idea.

 
At Thursday, June 30, 2005 12:39:00 AM, Blogger TriggerFinger said...

Sometimes, the best way to demonstrate the wrongness of a law is to enforce that law vigorously. Souter has the legal resources to fight this, and can be understood to have brought it upon himself. I have no sympathy for him. I don't think the Constitution allows what he thinks it does; but he's the one in the position to have the final say. He said it's OK. He can't then complain that it's not OK because it's done to him.

That would mean he was above the law.

 
At Thursday, June 30, 2005 9:01:00 AM, Blogger Mr. Completely said...

Thanks, guys for some very well thought out comments. I tend to agree with Jerrythegeek that this is primarily a publicity stunt to raise awareness of the situation, which it seems to be successfully doing, which is a good thing.

Some, however, are taking it seriously. There have even been death threats against some of the town council members over this.

Perhaps a more positive action would be for the locals to encourage the town council to pass a resoulution banning the taking of private property and turning it over to private individuals within their jurisdiction.

Washington state and Arizona (?) already have the language to that effect in their state constitutions. Anchorage, Alaska is considering such a step right now, from what I understand.

Personally, I think Souter should lose his citizenship, rather than his house. But that's just my opinion.

 
At Thursday, June 30, 2005 9:28:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Both Jerry... and I made assumptions, and we are both correct, it seems, if other bloggers are to be believed.

The MSM wants us to believe it is all a lighthearted joke, haha.

Perhaps if Justice Souter had to actually get off his screwy ass and file an answer to the proposed "taking", he might at least have an appreciation for the impact of what he's done.

Rivrdog

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

All contents copyright 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012 and beyond, unless otherwise noted