Cilley Randroid, Tricks Are for Lawyers
Cute idea, though.
UPDATE: On second thought, maybe there’s a way this could work after all. Here’s how. Freestar Media goes ahead with its publicity stunt and persuades the Towne of Weare to condemn Justice Souter’s property. Souter sues to block the eminent domain proceedings. The Towne demands removal to federal court. The case is removed, but the Towne of Weare loses anyway. Weare appeals and loses again, with the First Circuit Court of Appeal easily distinguishing the facts of Towne of Weare v. Souter from those of Kelo. That’s OK, for reasons I’ll explain later, we were supposed to lose this round.
Meanwhile, back here on the left coast, a Freestar Media clone - let’s call it Freestar-West - finds a vacation property owned by Justice Breyer, Justice Ginsberg, Justice Kennedy, or Justice Stevens, which just happens to be located in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, or the Northern Mariana Islands. Freestar-West pulls the exact same stunt there, more or less simultaneously with the New Hampshire action against Justice Souter’s property. Once again, the victim - let’s say, Justice Kennedy - sues in the applicable state (it doesn’t matter which) to block eminent domain proceedings. Once again, the city demands removal to federal court. Depending on the District Court judge, the city either wins or loses. That part doesn’t matter; either way the loser appeals, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals does its usual magic, once again taking an already-questionable Supreme Court precedent and running with it, far. This time, the city wins.
Now, we’re left with a circuit split, which is a pretty good way to convince the Supreme Court to hear a case. The Towne of Weare appeals its losing case from the First Circuit, and of course Justice Kennedy appeals his losing case from the Ninth. The cases raise exactly the same issues and are consolidated. For obvious reasons, Justices Souter and Kennedy recuse themselves. That leaves Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer to write an opinion purporting to dispose of Souter and Kennedy in the property owners’ favor without disturbing Kelo. No matter, the other four Justices are now a majority, and while they agree Justices Souter and Kennedy should get to keep their houses, they’d rather rule more broadly than that, so they merely copy and paste the lead dissenting opinion from Kelo, sign it, and Kelo is history. Justices Souter and Kennedy get to keep their homes, and the American people get to keep their Constitution. It’s a win-win.







June 28th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
Well, it may depend on how much they’re willing to pay the city coffers to raze the house.
Five million might do it. Since Kelo doesn’t seem to hang on a “public use”, but rather just on “civic revenue enhancement”, tearing the house down and putting up a statue to the Bill of Rights — while netting the city $3+ million — is perfectly fine, and Souter hasn’t a leg to stand on.
June 28th, 2005 at 7:40 pm
The legal system and courts will never allow any such reciprocity to go ahead against SCOTUS justices, but that’s just the problem–the black robes are immune to the threat eminent domain increasingly poses to small-time property owners across America.
June 28th, 2005 at 11:38 pm
Damn, I like the way you think. It’s positively devious.
June 29th, 2005 at 7:31 am
I Can’t Wait for Souter vs. Freestar Media, LLC
The best way for some to learn their lesson is to receive a firm backhanded slap from reality. Freestar Media is attempting to provide just such a gift to Supreme Court Justice David Souter, by proposing the development of “The…
June 29th, 2005 at 11:51 am
X, the recusal angle is genius, ‘cept for one problem … only conservative justices have the decency to recuse themselves in cases of conflicting interest.
June 30th, 2005 at 8:11 am
The Lost Liberty Hotel is a great idea, but where’s the rifle range? Where’s the medical marijuana clinic?