June 28, 2005


Press Release (Freestar Media, June 28, 2005)

Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

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 Café" 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."

Don't take his house--he doesn't like being on the Court and it's easy to see him retiring to it.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 28, 2005 10:26 PM

Then take Stevens'

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 28, 2005 10:29 PM

Justice Souter will have plenty of money from the "just compensation" he receives upon condemnation of his home to reserve a room in that Lost Liberty Hotel. He will even get room service, I betcha.

Posted by: John J. Coupal at June 28, 2005 10:45 PM

Start the process on all 5 of the yes voters.

Posted by: AWW at June 28, 2005 11:10 PM

ah - this is so rich!

Now let's house some of the Gitmo prisoners in the homes of all judges that insist they be released.

Posted by: obc at June 29, 2005 12:14 AM

Does anyone here really believe any liberal members of the court will retire before the next presidential election? They will almost certainly hold out until 2008 and hope for a Democrat to win the presidency. If this occurs, will President McCain nominate a conservative to replace a liberal or will he try to maintain the current "balance"?

Posted by: Patrick H at June 29, 2005 1:15 AM

Don't take Souter's house.

Just take Souter.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at June 29, 2005 1:24 AM

Do any of the British bookie sites have any odds posted on who, when and why? If they did, a lot of people lost a bit of money these last couple of days.

As for Souter, maybe then can move his house and store it next to Prof. Kaczynski's.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at June 29, 2005 1:52 AM

Souter will never give up his Supreme Court seat. When you have a face and personality like his, the only way you can pick up dates in the DC gay scene is to be in a position of power.

Judges are notorious for believing themselves to be above the law. Here in NJ a while back, there was a decision made in the Mantoloking case in which Justice Worrall Mountain, an Essex County WASP appointed by the GOP and probably related to OJ, reached the conclusion that local comunities could not oppose the placement of halfway houses for criminals and drug addicts in their neighborhoods. WHen he reached mandatory retirement, the State wanted to put a similar institution in his hometown of Upper Montclair. In a feat of staggering hypocrisy and ego that only an idiot in robes could achieve, Justice Mountain led the opposition to in the courts, which dutifully threw his written opinion back into his fat, stupid face.

Posted by: bart at June 29, 2005 6:27 AM

The whole bit about trying to time your retirement for political advantage doesn't ever seem to have happened.

Posted by: oj at June 29, 2005 7:42 AM

It would be some Rand-crank. I sense Greenspan is behind this somewhere. But go ahead and take it; Souter can be nobody anywhere.

Just wondering...how the hell did get the nod anyway? I know he didn't have a paper trail and Sunnunu swore by him. Was this just a Bush Sr. senior moment? Or was he a diversity pick for the Closeted-American Community? Or did he have polaroids of Sunnunu in the showers at Camp Gitchi Gitchi YaYa DaDa? Have Billy Dale and Souter ever been seen in the same room at the same time? What's the deal?

Posted by: Noel at June 29, 2005 10:00 PM

There was an amusing exchange on Hannity and Colmes tonight about the proposed Souter Hotel. The guest (didn't get his name) was asked why Souter, why not Stewart. He allowed that there might be a chain of five hotels.

Posted by: erp at June 29, 2005 10:13 PM

Bush might get a vacancy because a current justice's health compels him/her to retire.

Question for everyone: Is OJ right? Has there never been a case of a justice obviously timing his retirement for political reasons?

Posted by: Tom at June 30, 2005 6:39 AM

Arthur Goldberg left because LBJ asked him to be UN Ambassador and Goldberg wanted to set up an NYS gubernatorial run with enough money to take on Rockefeller. It was not a particularly brilliant political move.

Posted by: bart at June 30, 2005 8:56 AM