Protect the Justice from himself
Paul Gay
January 27, 2006
Introducing another ill thought-out decision on behalf of the supreme court. When should local governments be allowed to grab private land via eminent domain and hand it over to another private citizen? It's a sad day for all of us when law abiding citizens, who dutifully pay their property taxes every year, can be forced to loose their homes and land simply because some other individual wants it for development.
Yesterday in Weare, N.H. an amusing thing happened. Logan Clements, (private business person), requested an application to construct a hotel on the property of Supreme Court Justice David Souter. Clements aims to have the land and home taken by eminent domain.
Justice Souter's vote in the recent "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision paved the way for city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another. Clements has decided to use the very same justification to take Justice Souter's home in N.H. Once the hotel is built, it will pay higher property taxes and increase the economic benefit for the townspeople of Weare.
Since Justice Souter feels that such an underhanded land grab is lawful, it seems fitting to see how he will react when his home is lost to development. However, when we consider his position, should our supreme court justices be protected from such backlash? Can they be expected to perform their duties if they have to constantly look over their shoulder to see how their decisions effect their own well being? These are difficult questions to resolve. It's a case of, "putting oneself in the other's shoes."
Allowing one private individual to take property from another private individual for personal gain is just plain wrong, even if it is a supreme court justice. For that matter, why should local governments be allowed to benefit? At last check, the government was supposed to protect it's citizens, not profit from the spoils. Eminent domain is a dirty trick in anyone's book. If people want a big box store, restaurant, new city park or any other development added to their neighborhood, they should move to an area where people are willing to sell. One person should never have the legal right to take land from another. This is another case of the government telling it's citizens, "If you have money, you can get anything you want."
Yesterday in Weare, N.H. an amusing thing happened. Logan Clements, (private business person), requested an application to construct a hotel on the property of Supreme Court Justice David Souter. Clements aims to have the land and home taken by eminent domain.
Justice Souter's vote in the recent "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision paved the way for city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another. Clements has decided to use the very same justification to take Justice Souter's home in N.H. Once the hotel is built, it will pay higher property taxes and increase the economic benefit for the townspeople of Weare.
Since Justice Souter feels that such an underhanded land grab is lawful, it seems fitting to see how he will react when his home is lost to development. However, when we consider his position, should our supreme court justices be protected from such backlash? Can they be expected to perform their duties if they have to constantly look over their shoulder to see how their decisions effect their own well being? These are difficult questions to resolve. It's a case of, "putting oneself in the other's shoes."
Allowing one private individual to take property from another private individual for personal gain is just plain wrong, even if it is a supreme court justice. For that matter, why should local governments be allowed to benefit? At last check, the government was supposed to protect it's citizens, not profit from the spoils. Eminent domain is a dirty trick in anyone's book. If people want a big box store, restaurant, new city park or any other development added to their neighborhood, they should move to an area where people are willing to sell. One person should never have the legal right to take land from another. This is another case of the government telling it's citizens, "If you have money, you can get anything you want."