Justice in N.H.
Jan 22nd, 2006 by Mark
This is too funny. Justice Souter’s house in N.H. is the target of a group hoping to force him out of his house, by using his own ruling against him. The ruling allows private companies to use government thugery (eminent domain) as a means to remove legitimate owners of property so that greedy land grabbers can have it.
Seems that the sentiment is against the Justice.
The petition asks whether the town should take Souter’s land for development as an inn, whether to set up a trust fund to accept donations for legal expenses, and whether to set up a second trust fund to accept donations to compensate Souter for his land. The matter goes to voters on March 14.
Clements gathered nine signatures in under an hour, with only one resident declining to sign. He also distributed copies of the high court’s ruling, in which it said New London, Conn., could seize homeowners’ property to develop a hotel, convention center, office space and condos next to Pfizer Inc.’s new research headquarters.
Hope this passes.
The local ‘tin star’ is doing his share to protect Souter.
Bill Quigley, deputy police chief of Weare, population 8,500, said any protesters would be told to stay across the street from a dirt road that leads to Souter’s farmhouse.
“They’re obviously not going to be allowed on Justice Souter’s property,” he said.
Why are they not allowed to assemble on Souter’s side of the road? I am positive that right IS enumerated in the Constitution. Gee I wonder.
Maybe the high court pinheads will see that their rulings are not some exercise in a “grand experiment”. Then again, maybe not.
So why did this start? With the ruling in Kelo vs. City of New London.
The city argued that tax revenues and new jobs from the development would benefit the public.
What public? The one you kicked out? What they meant was that the tax coffers would be filled for the politicians to spend on their personal boon-doggles.
The Justices ruled 5–4 for the abuse of power by New London Conn.
The Pfizer complex was built, but seven homeowners challenged the rest of the development in court. The Supreme Court’s ruling against them prompted many states, including New Hampshire, to examine their eminent domain laws.
In other words “State’s Rights” triumphed over “Personal Rights”.
The most annoying thing about this, is that the same thought process for this ruling has not been applied to Roe V Wade. Property rights are clearly enumerated in the constitution, unlike the mythical ‘right to privacy’.