Gay Patriot Header Image

Justice Souter’s NH Home To Be “Seized”

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 2:38 pm - March 14, 2006.
Filed under: Constitutional Issues,Post 9-11 America

I just saw this on the FOX News Channel news scroll and laughed. Unfortunately, it sounds like the town got cold feet and watered down the original language.

NH Town Votes on Justice Souter’s House –

In a largely symbolic gesture, voters in Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s hometown weighed in Tuesday on a proposal to seize his 200-year-old farmhouse as payback for a ruling that expanded government’s authority to take property.

The vote was prompted by activists angered by the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision last year in a property rights case from Connecticut. Souter sided with the majority in holding that governments can take property and turn it over to private developers.

Originally, the ballot measure called for the seizure of Souter’s home so that it could be turned into an inn called the Lost Liberty Hotel. But at a town meeting in February, residents of this town of 8,500 watered down the language.

The reworded measure asked the Board of Selectmen not to use their power of eminent domain to take the farmhouse. The measure also urged New Hampshire to adopt a law that forbids seizures of the sort sanctioned by the Supreme Court.

Too bad. I think it would have been great if the town had turned his place into an inn. Only question I have… where would his Mom live?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)



  1. Wow, this has been going around the blogosphere for months now. Is this really the first you’ve seen of it?

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 14, 2006 @ 3:24 pm - March 14, 2006

  2. As I understand it, there is a potential lawsuit over this because people signed a measure to seize his home and the city council (I believe) added “not” after the fact, completely reversing the intent of the petition. It sounds absurd. I can’t imagine that being even remotely legal. Makes me think something is getting lost in translation as to exactly what happened.

    Comment by Dale in L.A. — March 14, 2006 @ 4:47 pm - March 14, 2006

  3. If you were a New Hampshire politican, would YOU want to have a life-member of the SCOTUS personally and viscerally “pissed” at you?

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — March 14, 2006 @ 6:40 pm - March 14, 2006

  4. That’s a helluva point, Ted! LOL

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 14, 2006 @ 6:53 pm - March 14, 2006

  5. The real estate developer was also going to put a restaurant in the hotel called the “Just Desserts Cafe”. Too bad that they’re not going to proceed with the taking of his property. The ruling in this case (Kelo v. City of New London) was absurd. Even those friends of mine that are of the uber-lib, kool aid drinkin, tin foil hat wearing, Che Guevara idolizing, reading friends thought that the ruling was insane. (Thankfully, I only have like 2 friends like that…all the rest are in the Libertarian camp with moi) Luckily, however, the individual statees are still capable of interpreting their own state constitutions for disallowing this type of reasoning in regard to the boundries of the eminent domain powers of the government.

    Comment by ARCountryBoy — March 14, 2006 @ 8:30 pm - March 14, 2006

  6. America would be a better place if more judges were subject to the end result of their rulings…
    Let Souter live in a tent.

    Comment by DaveP. — March 15, 2006 @ 2:36 am - March 15, 2006

  7. Souter’s mom could be a permanent guest at the inn, kind of like Major Gowen in Fawlty Towers.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 15, 2006 @ 9:00 am - March 15, 2006

  8. Yeah, Tim, but who’d be the “Manuel?”

    I’m thinking Dick Durbin, but that’s just my opinion.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 15, 2006 @ 12:28 pm - March 15, 2006

  9. This is just the latest example of how Conservtives dont know how to fight seriously. Sometimes fighting fire with fire is necessary. Republicans dont have the stomach to fight back and so are always the tortued little playground pansey.

    Comment by Gene — March 15, 2006 @ 8:32 pm - March 15, 2006

  10. Republicans dont have the stomach to fight back and so are always the tortued little playground pansey.

    Which is why Republicans control the US Congress, the Presidency, the Supreme Court, and the governorships of twenty-eight states (including three of the four most populous ones). As Cheech Marin once said, if this is torture, chain me to the wall.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 16, 2006 @ 3:20 am - March 16, 2006

  11. #9 — The problem isn’t conservatives, it’s gutless moderates and RINO’s like John McCain and Olympia Snowe who are no more than left-wing collaborators that thwart any attempt at progress.

    Comment by V the K — March 16, 2006 @ 5:45 am - March 16, 2006

  12. I think you should read Justice O’Conner’s comments on people like you spouting off about the judiciary and the ways in which you attack that branch of the government. She was speaking explicitly about people like you. She’s what conservatism used to be about….sorry to see what some of you have become.

    Comment by david — March 21, 2006 @ 2:55 am - March 21, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.