Lots of righty bloggers are posting about this story regarding the potential seizure of Justice David Souter’s house under new eminent domain rules in which he concurred in the Kelo case.
The commercial project envisioned for Souter’s homesite – The “Lost Liberty Hotel” with “Just Desserts Cafe” – is a publicity stunt by Freestar Media owner and political nutcase D. (Logan Darrow) Clements who ran as an “Objectivist” for Governor of California in the 2003 California recall.
This guy is a loon:
I want to make government as small as possible so the economy can be as large as possible. For starters, I would reduce by 50 percent the government spending on education by making all the schools private, from K through Ph.D universities. I would make the government so that it is only dealing with proper functions to protect our rights, like state troopers, courts, prisons, police, plus minor administrative functions. Almost everything else would be eliminated.
In addition to his foray into politics, Clements also has a “Reality TV” program on “Freenation” TV called The Lexington League” that highlights David versus Goliath stories of citizens against government.
This “proposal” to seize Souter’s land stinks to high heaven of a publicity stunt put on by an egotistical political gadfly who must really be enjoying being linked by The Captain, Glenn Reynolds, Michelle Malkin, and several dozen others.
Forget the silliness, let’s stop and think about this for a moment, shall we? Do we really want to practice this kind of intimidation against judges, be they Justices of the Supreme Court or any lesser judge? If we can’t insulate judges from this kind of pressure, what faith will we have in the decisions handed down by judges who are looking over their shoulder to see if there’s any chance they will personally suffer for interpreting the law?
Fruitcakes like Clements abound in this country. The potential for mischief is great. Any hint of intimidation would color the decision of a judge and invalidate it in the eyes of the public. The very idea of it smacks of dictatorship, especially if the intimidation were to be carried out by the cronies of powerful men.
It disturbed me when Judge Greer’s life was threatened in the Schiavo case. Yes he had conflict of interests (Greer was on the board of the hospice where Mrs. Schiavo was placed) and yes there were other legal aspects of the case that troubled many who are much more familiar with the law than I am. But to threaten a man’s life? That kind of thing can never be countenanced in a democracy if our judiciary is to remain free. And this attempt at punitive action against Justice Souter that has so many on the right cheering is no different in its goal – to intimidate a judge to rule in their favor.
It may feel good to envision a “Just Desserts Cafe” on property owned by one of the architects of the execrable Kelo decision. But somehow, I don’t think Justice Souter feels very good about it.
8:00 pm
Maybe your town has a better plan for your house?
If their better plan has the possibility of increasing the tax money – your house is gone
thanks in part to Justice Souter.
This is an exercise in free speech…the Court hasn’t revoked that amendment, not yet anyway..
An exercise in free speech is much better than an exercise of the right “to bear arms”..
And all this while the court works on removing our right to the freedom of religion..
9:07 pm
By your reasoning on this, a million protesters marching against this latest affront to the constitution would be intimidation, since they would in effect asking for a change to the law.
9:19 pm
Your desire to get back at Souter is childish and means spirited. And your idiotic comment regarding my house exposes your ignorance of the issue,
I oppose this decision:
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2005/06/24/god-bless-our-banana-republic/
And a march is political action, not imtimidation – a huge difference.
9:27 pm
Or, rather is this an issue that proves the adage: “Just not lest ye be judged, for the measure with which you measure, you will be measured.”
If Kelo was such a great decision, should not the judge be subject to it as is us lesser mortals? Or are judges our new gods, striding the earth with power exuding from them, which us mere mortals may grumble about, suredly (at least yet, until the First Amendment is legislated out of existence by a 5-4 court sometime), but not too damn loud lest our betters hear us and declare us in contempt, and which we had better not get too uppity about, or else?
Let’s rephrase the question, and see how it answers itself: Is making the members of the court feel the bite of their own decisions “the answer”?
Sounds like justice to me.
9:34 pm
Sorry, you are right regarding the differences but I still do not agree that using the laws as passed against the individual passing the law as intimidation. But then, I guess all laws can be intimidating. I apologize for making the previous post personal rather than an argument for the definition of intimidation. A good reason why I should stick to reading rather than posting…
9:59 pm
“It may feel good to envision a “Just Desserts Cafe†on property owned by one of the architects of the execrable Kelo decision. But somehow, I don’t think Justice Souter feels very good about it.”
Well, I, for one, would HOPE “Justice” Souter doesn’t feel very good about it. He should feel like shit . . . but I doubt he does. I’m sure his statist little heart fairly beats with pride at the brave new world his enlightened jurisprudence has ushered in.
And I have to concur with some of the other posters – if making judges feel the “bite” of their pronouncements is “intimidation,” then it’s intimidation that we need a LOT more of. Just like when the “Contract with America” made Congress subject to all of the dipshit laws they pass for us businesspeople to contend with.
9:02 am
[...] 5 UPDATE: JackLewis.net has collected several blogs who have posted on this. Rick Moran at Rightwing Nuthouse has a different take. Hat tip: [...]
9:06 am
[...] JackLewis.net has collected links to several blogs who have posted on this. Rick Moran at Rightwing Nuthouse has a different [...]
11:42 am
“...Do we really want to practice this kind of intimidation against judges…”
“Intimidation”? Rather, an introduction to the world they create with their rulings.
Were it up to me, I’d like to see ways devised to have judges (and justices) directly experience the consequences of as many of their rulings as possible, especially where they amend longstanding principles or create new law ex nihilo.
Sure, Clements may be, as you assert, a loon, but that has nothing to do with impeaching his idea of having Souter experience the consequences of his actions. Starting your argument against the “takings” ploy by Clements with an ad hominem argument only weakens your argument further, IMO. That your strongest argument boils down to a weak, “I don’t like it when judges have to live with the consequences of the actions” is not strengthened by equating the “talkings” ploy by Clements with death threats on other judges.
The two are not in any way, shape, fashion or form equivalent or even close order approximations.
One (death threats and acts of violence) is abhorant, vile. The other (Souter being hoist on his own petard) is simple ironic justice.
11:54 am
Why should Justice Souter, or any of the others who ruled in favor of this travesty for that matter, be immune to the consequences of said ruling?
The answer is obvious. If they hold any respect for their ruling and their Jusicial body, they must abide by it. Once the Supreme Court rules, there is no appeal. So nobody is immune.
That means that we can form LLCs, get the capital together, and strip activist judges of their property if we want to.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Why not hoist the SOBs on their own petards?
12:33 pm
If we can’t insulate judges from this kind of pressure, what faith will we have in the decisions handed down by judges who are looking over their shoulder to see if there’s any chance they will personally suffer for interpreting the law?
Did you even read that after you wrote it?
There’s a huge difference in some whackjob threatening a judge’s life for nothing and a judge suffering the legal consequences of the law he or she interpreted.
It’s the same as the difference between some moron threatening to stab Harry Blackman’s (Chief Justice in Roe v. Wade) pregnant daughter in the abdomen and Blackman complaining about his never having any grandchildren because his daughter kept choosing to abort.
That’s just an analogy; I don’t know if Blackman had children or grandchildren.
12:36 pm
No American citizen, especially one in government, should ever be above the law. That is how our country is supposed to work.
1:00 pm
I will stick to my guns on this and say that it is intimidation and that its wrong.
Souter’s house is being TARGETED…deliberately as an act of revenge. There’s a helluva difference between that and a town council actually deluding itself into thinking its acting in the common good by tearing down a house.
2:05 pm
I love clever ideas and you have to admit (crackpot or not), Darrow’s idea and press release is very clever and thought-provoking. Imagine,the irony if it came to fruition. And picture a SCOTUS judge slouching away from his doomed home carrying a suitcase.
2:25 pm
Stick to your guns all you want, but you’re wrong. If a judge makes a particularly odious act legal, then that judge has only himself or herself to blame when someone performs that act upon him or her.
Why do you support having a different set of laws for judges than for everybody else? Why should a judge never have to be subject to the laws he or she interprets (or makes, as the case may be)?
In your logic, a judge could make rape legal and you would cry foul if someone then “targeted” the judge for rape.
5:45 pm
Rick,
I have to agree with Sue, for a VARIETY of reasons. First, “good for the goose, good for the gander.” If Souter TRULY believes that his idiot ruling in Kelo is “just,” WHY should it not apply to him as equally as to any other landowner?? Do you NOT believe that there will be many actions by developers, in response to Kelo, similar to Clements’??? If you don’t, I have a few bridges I’d like to sell you. If OTHER landowners will be receiving this kind of joy, shouldn’t Souter, as an architect of this disaster, share it along with them.
Second, dude, this is called “free speech,” and if Souter (and you) doesn’t like it – well, as they say in Tijuana, “los frijoles duros.”
Third, this is NOT intimidation – and that accusation is almost as overheated as the “Gitmo = Auschwitz” rhetoric of the moonbat left. MY Webster’s Online defines intimidation as “The act of making timid or fearful or of deterring BY THREATS.” My Webster’s also defines a threat as “The expression of an intention TO INFLICT EVIL OR INJURY on another.” Now, HOW can this be a threat?? Is Souter (and are you) claiming that such a taking is an “evil or injury”??? If so, then why in hell did he vote with the majority to authorize such? Or, if this action is simply a VALID EXERCISE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT POWER, then HOW can it be a “threat”??????
If I said I was going to go to his house and burn it down, THAT would be a threat. Having his house taken is simply having him hoist on his own petard. Which, mind you, is not a bad idea.
Sorry, you’re simply WRONG - and your sympathies are badly misplaced.
5:48 pm
For the last time…
I oppose the decision. I think it a travesty. But anyone who can’t see where this kind of action against Souter would lead is letting their well deserved sense of revenge cloud their judgement.
6:04 pm
#18
No, Rick, it is you who have obviously lost the argument.
This is not a case of intimidation. It is a case of protest.
You may target a government official for protest. You can even be clever about it. I can see nothing but justice here in this instance. Using the very same ruling which devastates others in our society to apply to the person who put pen to paper to see it happen is not revenge: it is the very definition of justice.
You reap what you sow. That’s just.
And you projecting your strawman “revenge” argument on others doesn’t wash. It doesn’t matter what our motives are: it is our argument that is important.
I hate to see a guy floundering on his own blog, but simply being stubborn and impugning the motives of those whose arguments are better than yours is not argument.
Slowly, and one more time, with feeling:
This is an instance of giving someone the full effect of what they wreak on someone else. It is clever and has the possibility of being quite effective.
It is not illegal. The only thing one can say is that the judge might not like it. Since one does whether a judge personally like something mean it is prohibited or wrong (stop laughing). At least, it shouldn’t mean that.
No, this is actually a perfect response to a wrong decision. It may actually work, but even if it doesn’t, it is just.
You get what you sow.
6:05 pm
Change “Since one does” to “Since when does”.
My apologies.
7:11 pm
Rick:
Thanks for your explanatory note. I heard the instigator of the “Lost Liberty Hotel” plan was a libertarian, and I’m not surprised he is very strongly anti-big-government.
I agree that unlawful intimidation of judges is wrong. But this is not unlawful intimidation. Based on Souter’s vote on Kelo, this kind of action is now lawful. It is very, very distasteful, but it is no more so for Souter than it was for the residents of New London, some of whom have lived in their (now-condemned) homes for considerably longer than the eminent Justice has lived in his.
It is sad that some judges must be hoist on their own legalistic petards before they will read the law as it is written, and but aside their policy preferences for those of the duly elected legislative bodies—but if that is what must be done, so be it.
I for one will stay at the Lost Liberty Hotel when it is built, and I will toast the man who bulids it.
8:26 pm
Rick,
We are obviously NOT on the same wavelength, here. I like your blog, and I tend to agree with and respect most of your views, so I want to make an effort to “bridge the gap.”
I agree that TRULY intimidating judges with whom you disagree – by, for example, threatening their wives and children, or their home, or damaging or threatening to damage their personal property, or threatening or making and implied threat to their person. BAD JUJU.
I think YOU would agree that PROTESTING the decisions of a judge you disagree with is PRECISELY what the Founding Fathers were seeking to protect when they wrote the First Amendment.
So, where does one cross the line between “intimidation” and “protest”?? IMNSHO, it is inherent in the definitions of “intimidation” and “threat.” ALthough neither REQUIRE illegality, there is certainly a sense, particularly in the definition of “threat” of violence or illegality.
If a Congressman votes for legislation requiring a 50 yard “protest free” zone around all abortion clinics, is it proper to picket their house? If not, why not? If a judge sentences a convicted child molester to probation, would you consider it “improper intimidation” to write a letter to the State Corrections Board suggesting that the miscreant serve his probation in the Judge’s neighborhood? Again, why?
Clement may be a nutjob – but he’s a clever nutjob. He is doing NOTHING more sinister than an irate parent writing a letter to the Corrections Board suggesting that, if a judge is going to release a pedophile on the community, it should be in the JUDGE’s community. Such protest is neither “intimidation,” nor is it improper.
Frankly, PARTICULARLY in the case of judges, who do not have to face the ballot box, I’d like to see a lot MORE of such protest. They SHOULD get a feel for what their judicial idiocy sometimes inflicts on the rest of us.
8:32 pm
Okay…now that you put it that way, I can see where you’re coming from.
My concern is using the law to punish Souter. Perhaps “intimidation” was the wrong word to use in that sense. When appointed for life, judges are held accountable only by their consciences. As long as they don’t get involved in bribery or other turpitudeness activities, they’re clear to rule according to their own lights.
Do people have a right to protest decisions like Kelo? Absolutely. My fear is that such protests take the form of punishment.
9:52 pm
Not to throw gas on the fire or anything, but:
What if the protests take the form of punishment? I don’t grant to you that there is anything wrong with that as long as:
it is legal. Period.
This whole concept of imperial judiciary, the touch-me-not judiciary, who bristle at the slightest criticism of their robed utterings, is not consistent with the rule of law.
In the rule of law, the law rules, not the person of the judge. So, if a legal means exists that permits a person to defeat a judge’s ruling:
like appeal,
or impeachment,
political action,
or taking the judge’s ruling and applying it to the judge personally,
and it’s all legal,
so what if it is punishment?
The people are supposed to run this government, not the government the people. Let’s remember that.
And any judge who can’t operate in that realm: get a different job. It’s not about you.
1:10 pm
Rick, it strikes me as odd that you view this as a form of “punishment” or “threat” towards Judge Souter. If having your land taken by government and redistributed for a greater tax revanue is a punishment, what did you or I do to deserve such punishment to be laid down on us from the all mighty judges up above? What did the common people do to Souter to deserve this terrible “punishment” or “threat” that he has so willingly put on us? Do you feel like the “punishment” and “threat that Souter has made to YOU was deserved? Rick, you may not be willing to stand up for our rights but we are willing to stand up for yours by building this hotel on Souter’s land.
2:07 pm
In addition to my previous comment: The judges need to, when legislating from the bench, keep the golden rule in mind. “Do unto others as you’de have done unto you”. Souter is a classic example of exaclty the reason this is good advice.
10:43 am
They took their land without fair compensation nor compensation for their trouble in moving when they othewise would not need to move. These judges and their families are lucky they did not wind up with their throats slit. What is legal is not always just and what is just is not always legal.
Perhaps if the original judge got justice before this case whnt to appeal, it would have given the judges hearing the appeal something to think about: their lives and those of their families.
Given that judges serve for life and that it is dificult to impeach them, what is the fastest and easiest way to remove a judge?
4:14 pm
propecia order without prescription
Pugh composure,boggles pops faithfulness