[Keith] Lacasse, a local architect, [proposed] turning it into the Lost Liberty Hotel.I don't think they've "succeeded in embarrassing Souter." They've only tried to intimidate him, which is embarrassing to them. He decided the case based on the precedents, calling it as he saw it. To retaliate against him personally is to say that you want cases to be decided based on personal interest. And yet you think you're standing up for the rule of law. Incoherent!
"Actually, it would be more like a bed and breakfast," Lacasse said. "We'd use the front of the house for a cafe and a little museum. There'd be nine suites, with a black robe in each of the closets."
So far Souter has not joined the local debate on the proposal, something that makes him fairly unusual in this country town near Manchester. The Lost Liberty Hotel has dominated the campaign debate and the pages of The Weare Free Press. There seem to be two main factions: those who oppose the Kelo decision and want to punish Souter by taking his property, and those who oppose the Kelo decision but want to leave him alone....
[A]s much as I admire Lacasse's plans for the Lost Liberty Hotel, at this point I think it would be overkill.
However the vote comes out today, Lacasse and his allies have succeeded in embarrassing Souter, and that's enough. ... [A] judge should be able to make a bad or unpopular decision without losing his home. But he does deserve a reality check, and Souter's neighbors have obliged.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
The Lost Liberty Hotel.
John Tierney writes about the effort to take over Justice Souter's house by eminent domain to protest the Kelo case. (Limited access link to TimesSelect.)
Labels:
law,
museum,
Souter,
Supreme Court
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment