Fair Play: Justice Souter Faces Eviction Hearing

Lost Liberty HotelOn February 4th, the residents of Weare, NH will have a chance to wreak revenge on Supreme Court Justice David Souter over his part in the Kelo decision, which grants municipalities the power to seize land for use in commercial projects. Led by the Committee for the Protection of Natural Rights, several groups have banded together to put forth an initiative to seize Souter’s vacation home and turn it into a commercial property — Lost Liberty Hotel (via Sploid):

“This is in the tradition of the Boston Tea Party and the Pine Tree Riot,” organizer Logan Darrow Clements said in a telephone interview. The riot took place during the winter of 1771-1772, when colonists in Weare beat up officials appointed by King George III who fined them for logging white pines without approval.

“All we’re trying to do is put an end to eminent domain abuse,” Clements said, by having those who advocate or facilitate it “live under it, so they understand why it needs to end.”

Some aren’t as receptive to the idea, and claim it to be intimidation:

Neal Kurk, who represents Weare in the statehouse, said he and “a lot of other people in town” were troubled by the idea of subjecting a Supreme Court Justice to the consequences of one of his own decisions. “It’s almost as if they are trying to intimidate judges,” said Kurk, a Republican.

To folks like Kurk, the idea of “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” is devoid of meaning. Perhaps direct lessons in how bad the Kelo decision was will slowly change minds like his, or at the very least begin a nation-wide chain of hotels and parks on the property of those stupid enough to keep endorsing eminent domain theft.

Previously:
This Land is Your Land, But Now it’s My Land
Hotel Lost Liberty

6 Comments
  1. Neal Kurk’s point is clear: government soars high above reproach, and certainly above the law. For the state to steal property in its infinite wisdom and for the public good is one thing; for the people to mobilize a responsive effort against the leviathan, is something else entirely.

  2. This story is just as important if not more important than your story about the protest during Gonzalez’ speech yet it is receiving very little traffic.

    That saddens me.

  3. it’s all in the phrasing – “subjecting a Supreme Court Justice to the consequences of one of his own decisions.”

    interesting that it’s intimidation when state-sponsored coercion is aimed in the other direction, but it’s ?what? when it’s aimed at us??