Salty

iTrader: (14)

Exactly my point.

All but 1 of the majority voters were liberal. 3 of those justices were appointed by liberal Presidents. 1 liberal justice was appointed by Bush Sr. The moderate voting justice (Kennedy) was appointed by Reagan.

So you either way you cut it you have 4 liberal justices and 1 moderate justice that voted in favor.

Or you can look at it the other way and consider the fact that 3 of those justices (all liberal) where appointed by liberal Presidents. The other 2 were appointed by more conservative Presidents. 3 > 2. Either way you look at it our point is groundless.

Kevin M

iTrader: (12)

Alright, I suck for failing to research who voted for what. But my comment that this is perhaps the single worst decision in the history of the Court stands. Simply unbelievable. The minority was O'Connor, Rehnquist, Thomas, and SCALIA for crying out lud. How far back do you have to go to find those 4 on the same side in a close vote.

I think Strong Bad said it best. The system is down, yo.

VIBEELEVEN

iTrader: (2)

I didn't know Ruth Ginsberg was a conservative ?

Kevin M

iTrader: (12)

Awesome... just awesome...

http://freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html



Haha!

Salty

iTrader: (14)

No way! Hahaha

Salty

iTrader: (14)

LMFAO

This is worthy of a sticky just to see where it goes. :crosses fingers:

Kevin M

iTrader: (12)

I really only see two possible outcomes here. The first is that a deliciously ironic hotel gets built there. Satisfying revenge, but in the end that's exactly what we don't want to happen. If it goes through, then that would pretty much seal the fate of this issue, it will not ever be reversed.

The more likely outcome, IMHO, is that Justice Souter sees the error of the courts ways, brings about a suit to stop the development (after the inevitable approval by the local government) which is fast-tracked to the Supreme Court to be ruled illegal like it should have been in the first place. I definitely think that the Hotel will get approval and actions will begin in earnest to force Justice Souter off of his land. What I hope (as well as all of those who join this venture, financially, officially, and spiritually) is that the law is interpreted how the spirit of the Constitution says it should, which is in the interests of protecting the People from the Government. I too am crossing my fingers.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

I think the builder would obviously rather have the deal go through. His idea is brilliant and such a slap in the face. His hotel would be of historical legend based on the theme of the hotel and the land alone.

But there has to be that side of him that doesn't care if it falls through the cracks. If it gets voted out at the local government level then that's one thing. If Justice Souter finds a loophole and takes legal action then he (and those who voted for this) will look bad either way.

I don't think this will open pandoras box. The justices that voted for the seizure of private property already did that. This is just poetic justice at its finest.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

You can donate here http://www.freestarmedia.com/advertise.html

I seriously plan on donating money once the escrow account is established.