Justice Souter to lose house to emminent domain?
We can only hope....
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
See link that follows, originally found via DrudgeReport.
Linked here: Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter?
Honestly, I didn't say much after the "Kelo" decision. I have to be up-front and admit that I actually support the decision in many ways, but I would be very careful to note that I support E.D. (Emminent Domain) where it is specifically for the benefit of the public, not simply so that the government can help a private developer take land and property.
For example, in D.C., where E.D. will be used to help build the new stadium for the Washington Nationals, it makes sense to allow the government to use the power to take the property -- provided they pay fair compensation to the property owners -- because there will be great public benefit in renewing a pathetic part of D.C. The businesses that are in the area are primarily strip bars aimed at Homosexuals, as well as old factory and warehouse buildings that barely could meet safety code if a real inspection were held. The bars are known as places where gay men can go pick up one night stands, adding more potential un-safe sex between high-risk group members into the exploding numbers of aids and HIV positive cases in D.C.
Ridding the city of those shoddy businesses, and the disgustingly polluted and trashed surroundings (condoms are known to be strewn among the other trash that litters the grounds around the bars and streets in the area) while adding a structure that will provide jobs to many, and millions in potential tax revenues to the city treasury is a good thing.
It could be argued perhaps that the use of E.D. to help build a stadium for a bunch of fat-cat baseball team owners is more beneficial to a private enterprise. Perhaps, but again, the city will take in millions in taxes, they will have greatly improved the area, and they'll be helping provide jobs for city youth. Is that not public benefit?
There-in unfortunately is also part of what led Justice Souter and friends to make the decision they made in this case. They looked at the case at hand and decided that it was not up to them to decide what really benefits a locality. Instead, they have decided to trust the localities. That's an interesting decision, considering it came from the same court that decided that at age 17, 364 days, and 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds a youth is too young to be tried as an adult, no matter what a jury of peers may decide regarding the maturity of the individual. In that case, the court decided to make a decision. Not one I agree with, but still, they made a decision. They decided that they'd draw the line at age 18. Rather than trust jurors, prosecutors, and others that are more directly and intimately involved in cases, they decided take that responsibility away.
Yet in this case, they tossed that argument out the window, and instead have decided that it's again ok for localities to be the arbiters.
How interesting.
Anyway, it could be fun to see if this truly isn't a prank. If it isn't, then I hope they start building soon. Give Souter a dollar for his home and flatten it quickly. Perhaps he'd think twice about the stupid decisions he makes and the consequences there of.
Linked here: Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter?
Honestly, I didn't say much after the "Kelo" decision. I have to be up-front and admit that I actually support the decision in many ways, but I would be very careful to note that I support E.D. (Emminent Domain) where it is specifically for the benefit of the public, not simply so that the government can help a private developer take land and property.
For example, in D.C., where E.D. will be used to help build the new stadium for the Washington Nationals, it makes sense to allow the government to use the power to take the property -- provided they pay fair compensation to the property owners -- because there will be great public benefit in renewing a pathetic part of D.C. The businesses that are in the area are primarily strip bars aimed at Homosexuals, as well as old factory and warehouse buildings that barely could meet safety code if a real inspection were held. The bars are known as places where gay men can go pick up one night stands, adding more potential un-safe sex between high-risk group members into the exploding numbers of aids and HIV positive cases in D.C.
Ridding the city of those shoddy businesses, and the disgustingly polluted and trashed surroundings (condoms are known to be strewn among the other trash that litters the grounds around the bars and streets in the area) while adding a structure that will provide jobs to many, and millions in potential tax revenues to the city treasury is a good thing.
It could be argued perhaps that the use of E.D. to help build a stadium for a bunch of fat-cat baseball team owners is more beneficial to a private enterprise. Perhaps, but again, the city will take in millions in taxes, they will have greatly improved the area, and they'll be helping provide jobs for city youth. Is that not public benefit?
There-in unfortunately is also part of what led Justice Souter and friends to make the decision they made in this case. They looked at the case at hand and decided that it was not up to them to decide what really benefits a locality. Instead, they have decided to trust the localities. That's an interesting decision, considering it came from the same court that decided that at age 17, 364 days, and 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds a youth is too young to be tried as an adult, no matter what a jury of peers may decide regarding the maturity of the individual. In that case, the court decided to make a decision. Not one I agree with, but still, they made a decision. They decided that they'd draw the line at age 18. Rather than trust jurors, prosecutors, and others that are more directly and intimately involved in cases, they decided take that responsibility away.
Yet in this case, they tossed that argument out the window, and instead have decided that it's again ok for localities to be the arbiters.
How interesting.
Anyway, it could be fun to see if this truly isn't a prank. If it isn't, then I hope they start building soon. Give Souter a dollar for his home and flatten it quickly. Perhaps he'd think twice about the stupid decisions he makes and the consequences there of.