Eminent domain payback.

[DrewKaree]

If this is true, not only is this one of the more clever protests I've heard of, but what a way to do it - hitting 'em where it hurts (although I bet if it happens, Souter gets PAID!)

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/28/160219.shtml

[rohan]

Damn right!   Those ---daisies--- are using our Constitution like T.P.  I hope it goes through, and Souter gets pennies on the dollar!  This is what needs to be done to teach these morons a lesson.

[ChadTower]

Why this is big news, I'm not sure.  A town a few miles from me took a few houses last year to expand a business complex.  It was already legal, the Supreme Court just affirmed it.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Why this is big news, I'm not sure.

You are a real stick in the mud sometimes. 

This is a funny story...laugh monkey-boy, laugh!!!!!

mrC

[saint]

There is a difference between believing something is right, and that something is legal. It is the job of the court to review the laws of a case and rule accordingly. Blaming the court for finding this to be allowable is like blaming a cook for following a recipie as instructed to do so. If there's something wrong with the law, it is the job of Congress to rectify it.

Now, if your position is that the court misinterpreted the law then you have something to object to -- however I haven't heard anyone make this analysis.

If they've interpreted the laws reasonably well and the laws allow for this use of eminent domain,then it's not the fault of the court (Souter) that they ruled accordingly.

--- saint (I personally hope Congress steps in and does something about this)

Damn right!   Those ---daisies--- are using our Constitution like T.P.  I hope it goes through, and Souter gets pennies on the dollar!  This is what needs to be done to teach these morons a lesson.

[Stingray]

I agree with Saint in that this law really needs to be changed, but this is still a hilarious story.

-S

[ChadTower]

It's not, really... they're trying to take this guy's house for making a legal interpretation of existing laws.  They don't understand the process and this judge could lose his house over it.

They are idiots.

[fredster]

Sweet.

[DreamArcades]

Now, if your position is that the court misinterpreted the law then you have something to object to -- however I haven't heard anyone make this analysis.

The fifth amendment has long been interpreted to limit the seizure of private property except for compelling public use. The supreme court decided to re-define the fifth amendment in an decision that has degraded individual rights more than any I can recall in recent history.

Translation: It

[Stingray]

It's not, really... they're trying to take this guy's house for making a legal interpretation of existing laws.  They don't understand the process and this judge could lose his house over it.

And what about that isn't funny?

-S

[ChadTower]

The fact that the judge didn't do anything wrong?  Interpreting the law isn't a moral call.  If the law is so wrong, have Congress change it, but don't blame the guys who have to read it and enforce it.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

The fact that the judge didn't do anything wrong?  Interpreting the law isn't a moral call.  If the law is so wrong, have Congress change it, but don't blame the guys who have to read it and enforce it.

I agree with you and Saint. Since it'd be like forcing a judge who upholds Roe V. Wade to get an abortion.

But I gotta' admit...this is still funny, because unlike the abortion analogy, it's a clever (and not physically harmful) way of bringing attention to the potential harm caused by eminent domain.

mrC

[fredster]

Wouldn't take more than just new laws?  Wouldn't take a consitutional amendment to clarify the "eminent domain" ?

[ChadTower]

Probably not, since the right to own property is pretty clear in the bill of rights... I honestly haven't really looked into it, though.  I don't quite see how a law can be made in contradiction with a constitutional amendment, but it happens all the time, especially in the last 5 years.

[Dartful Dodger]

The eminent domain and those patriot act laws need to be stopped.

[GameOver]

I read this on CNN when I got to work this morning.  I love it!  Chances are the 'board of selectmen' won't approve this (unless they're all members of BYOAC!).  Either that, or like Drew said, Souters will get double what the property is worth & he'll be the one laughing.

[ChadTower]

Eminent domain is not a recent thing, it has been there a LONG time. 

Dude won't get even market value.  Someone whose property is taken via eminent domain usually gets appraisal value, a town appraisor with the town's best interests at heart.  They usually get the shaft.

[DrewKaree]

It was already legal, the Supreme Court just affirmed it.

It was supposed to be legal for government use.  What they ruled was that it is OK to use eminent domain to force someone from their house for something like higher tax revenue to the government by the new property "owner".  They affirmed the right to take a person's private property and give it to another person.

The fact that the judge didn't do anything wrong?  Interpreting the law isn't a moral call.  If the law is so wrong, have Congress change it, but don't blame the guys who have to read it and enforce it.

This is humor through irony, and in large doses.  No one's "blaming" the judge, they're simply using this as an example of just HOW this law can be used.  To reverse the situation, how is the guy looking to get Souter's house doing anything wrong?  Isn't he looking to work within the law?  Therein lies the humor of the situation.