Plan to confiscate Justice Souter's house under Eminent Domain for Hotel

[Ian David]

Yes, I know that the repugs are behind this...

But in my opinion, I think maybe getting onboard this bandwagon.

Fuck, liberals and progressives own homes, too!






July 28, 2005: Weare Residents Start Ballot Initiative Drive to Support the Project and Circumvent the Board of Selectmen

Early Friday, July 22 Logan Darrow Clements sent a letter to all five Selectmen in the Town of Weare asking them whether he should spend the time and money to develop a presentation of the Lost Liberty Hotel project. If the Selectmen already decided that they will oppose the project no matter what form it takes, or what benefit it offers, then there would be no point in making a presentation.

Here are the letters that were sent back and forth between Freestar and Selectman Joe Fiala.

What Mr. Fiala misunderstands in the position that he and other other Board members are taking is that, in shielding Mr. Souter from from his own ruling, the Board is not defending property rights, they are giving a special exemption to Mr. Souter from the consequences of the eminent domain abuse set loose by Mr. Souter himself. After the Kelo decision we are all subject to lose our homes to economic development. However, the Board seems to think that Mr. Souter should be shielded from the outcome of his own decision. Susette Kelo did not enjoy such a shield nor did Ahmad Mesdaq. Equal justice under the law is a principle the Board should abide by in this matter. Souter's high position should not allow him the privilege to be exempt from his own rulings.

I ask the residents of Weare to continue with your ballot initiative drive to circumvent the Board and also to investigate whether the laws in your jurisdiction allow you to remove the entire Board of Selectmen from office. America now needs the assistance of the residents of Weare so that the torch of liberty can enlighten one who has so soundly turned his back on all those who died to keep it lit.

Would you like to help Freestar continue the battle?

YES, I want to help

DEVELOPERS ARE JOINING THE BATTLE: Freestar plans to hand off the project to experienced development companies that can successfully complete it. Several real estate development companies have expressed an interest in taking this role. The ultimate project may end up as a small resort offering time shares or a bed and breakfast. It will also include the Just Deserts Cafe and Museum of Lost Freedom. Stay tuned...

BACKGROUND: On Monday June 27, Freestar Media, LLC informed the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire that it wants to begin the permit process to build a hotel on the land owned by Justice David H. Souter. Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner. Read Freestar's fax to the City of Weare here. Read Freestar's press release here. If you want to help us move forward with this project click here. Please be aware that this is a real project and if we receive sufficent funds and approvals we will build a hotel.

More:
http://www.freestarmedia.com/

[wli]

1. democrats believe in property rights, too

Generally things so regressive don't have to be defended against, but I see no problem whatsoever with joining a coalition with some grassroots rethugs (granted, at arms' length) for this particular cause.

[Ian David]

2. I have issues with donating money to their propaganda mill, but...

I'm still thinking (unless someone convinces me otherwise) that it might be a good idea to endorse this somehow.

Is there a conservative justice who sided with the majority that we can do this to?

How about the president of The Evil Corporation?

[KBlagburn]

3. Souter was appointed by Bush #1

here is the breakdown:

William H. Rehnquist, President Nixon nominated him to the Supreme Court, and he took his seat as an Associate Justice on January 7, 1972. Nominated as Chief Justice by President Reagan, he assumed that office on September 26, 1986.

John Paul Stevens, President Ford nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat December 19, 1975

Sandra Day O’Connor, President Reagan nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and she took her seat September 25, 1981.

Antonin Scalia, President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat September 26, 1986.

Anthony M. Kennedy, President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat February 18, 1988.

David Hackett Souter, President Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat October 9, 1990

Clarence Thomas, President Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat October 23, 1991.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, President Clinton nominated her as an Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court, and she took her seat August 10, 1993.

Stephen G. Breyer, President Clinton nominated him as an Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat August 3, 1994.



In the case of Kelo V. New London, here is how they voted:

STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion. O’CONNOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf

So as you can see, of the 5 who concurred, only two were appointed by democratic presidents. Why only 2? because we only have 2 justices who were appointed by democratic presidents.

[The Doctor.]

4. No... join up.

It is irrelevant whether or not the justice in question is a 'conservative', 'liberal', or 'moderate', not when we can deck two birds with one stone...

1) Send a very clear message to ANYONE who votes for this abominable statute that they are as susceptible to the laws they write or 'interpret' as anyone else.

2) Send a very clear message to the righteously pissed of Rightwingers (pissed-off... it's what they do) that their 'sworn enemies' are far more reasonable and non-partisan than they would like to believe.

Watch that blow their minds.

(Sure- they'll probably be ignorant and say "see- we are right after all"... but there will be an 'unconscious accord' nonetheless)

It is better to unify over an issue and use it to deliver a couple of points that would otherwise be dismissed than to exhibit greater partisanship by rejecting the notion simply because 'they' are promoting it. Besides, rejecting ideas out-of-hand is what 'they' do after all... right?

:evilgrin:

[Solo_in_MD]

5. Hear, Hear!

There is nothing wrong with working with your neighbor on items of mutual interest, regardless of politics. Besides it confuses the repukes to see progressives as nice neighbors and not devils with two tails.