Page 1 of 1
#1 Supreme Court and Sweet, sweet Irony
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:05 pm
by Cynical Cat
The Link
Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.
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.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.
Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.
The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."
Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.
"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."
Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.
#2
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:10 pm
by Ace Pace
This is one of the sweetest things i've heard today.
#3
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 2:50 pm
by B4UTRUST
*cracks open a cold one*
B4UTRUST presents: Real Men of Irony
(Real Men of Irony)
Today we salute you Mr. Freedom Taker Backer
(Freedom Taker Backer)
Men often ask those tough questions of morals and rights, and when they make the wrong decisions, only you have the balls to screw them over with their own stupidity.
(Fist them good!)
A Supreme Court Justice fucking himself royally? They all do that somehow. A Supreme Court Justice fucking himself and you taking advantage of it? That's ballsy.
(God they're huge!)
So crack open an ice cold B4U Light oh Reverend of Revenge. To most people, it's just an outrage but to you, it's a chance to hit them where it counts.
(Mr. Freedom Taker Baaaackeeeerrrr!)
#4
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:35 pm
by The Morrigan
I love it.
#5
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:51 pm
by frigidmagi
Score. I say twist the knife good and place the Justice in the halls of morons, I know it's unusual but let us give him a Darwin Award.
Mr. Clements you sir are gold!
#6
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:39 pm
by Josh
Repost from my belated thread on the topic:
Go libertarians, god bless my heathenous spiritual brothers-in-arms.
However, on the case itself-
I had a talk on the ruling with my attorney today, during our usual post-business sports/politics/life in general chat, and he had an interesting take on the matter.
As he said, good cases equal bad law, bad cases equal good law. And apparently this was a very good case. It was crafted in such a fashion that an opposite ruling would have called a great many eminent domain usages into question, those which would involve any interaction between government and private interests, and even could be used to strike down a variety of pollution measurements.
He was of the opinion that he couldn't find a better answer out of the case, as presented, beyond altering the restitution clause to go far beyond the current market value of the land by incorporating a percentage payoff clause that kicks back more money to the property owner.
He also said that the conservative courts are very likely to disregard and/or mangle this precedent badly enough that another case will end up before the Supreme Court before long, perhaps one that isn't so poisonously crafted.
#7
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 3:15 am
by The Grim Squeaker
Damn this is true Ironical justice
It's even sweeter for raising something so anti bible belt :
featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged.
#8
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 10:25 am
by frigidmagi
It's even sweeter for raising something so anti bible belt
Huh? They teach Ayn Rand in our schools still you know.
#9
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 10:40 am
by The Grim Squeaker
frigidmagi wrote:It's even sweeter for raising something so anti bible belt
Huh? They teach Ayn Rand in our schools still you know.
So what?
Despite being extremely anti bible, the books still are important philosophically and as individual works of literature.
(Except for the horrificly long speaches)
Have you read the books?
#10
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 11:04 am
by frigidmagi
Yes I have, I have found little to nothing anti-Bible.
#11
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 11:18 am
by Josh
Rand's Objectivist philosophy is inherently anti-religious, though. She even riffs on Nietzche for using 'will' as the prime foundation for his philosophy, decrying it as an intangible force, as compared to her preferred vehicle of reason.
That said, because of the libertarian ethos of her philosophy, Objectivism doesn't favor restriction of religion, so long as religious institutions and their members stick to what essentially amounts to the Zero-Agression Principle.
Furthermore, remember that the two biggest religious conservatives on the SCOTUS sided with the dissent on this ruling.