Just(ice) Desserts

Written on 12:36 AM by Jack B.

The worst US Supreme Court decision I can remember in my lifetime took place this past year with the case of Kelo v. New London. In that case by a 5-4 ruling that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses even against their will for private economic development.

Which means that even if your family has lived in a home for several generations, your local government can confiscate it, give you whatever they think it's worth and give it to private developers build strip malls or a new Wal-Mart, all in the name of economic development for the "community". If you're a church or a synagogue or mosque or any other non-for-profit entity this decision can even be worse because local community "leaders (i.e. politicians) can say that a developer who promises to make money off of your property is constituting more of an "advantage" to the community than a tax-free religious or social service group. The decision violates one of the things this country has always held sacred - private property rights. We have never been Communists or Socialists. Our Revolution was not the French one which nationalized and seized private property and re-sold it to the highest bidder. Our founders were all landowners who respected property rights and they would be rolling over in their graves right now - perhaps worried their final resting places will be confiscated and given to somebody who wants to open a Chuck E. Cheese. After all, what economic boosts do tombstones and cemeteries contribute to a community?

So imagine my pleasure to learn that one of those Justices who ruled that people's homes can be taken away from them for "private development" may face the same thing himself. A conservative entrepreneur named Logan Darrow Clements is asking the town of Weare, New Hampshire to seize the house of Associate Justice David Souter so it can be put to good use as a hotel - a hotel that would bring in more money for the "community" than Mr. Souter's home is doing now. After all, didn't Mr. Souter just rule that doing just this was permissible by the US constitution? What's good for the goose...

Here's the story: WorldNetDaily: Supreme Court justice faces boot from home?

And here's the press release announcing the plan: Freestar Media, LLC

Excerpt:

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 Cafe" 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."

Personally, I'm not quite sure if this is a joke or not. I hope not. It's about time that those who dictate to us on high feel the effects of their own decisions on themselves. It would indeed be a case of "Just Desserts".