« A winter's tale | Main | Question No. 4 »
January 17, 2006
Vendetta
Sometimes the best response to a really bad idea is to shut up about it. But sometimes not.
The effort to “take” U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s house in Weare is a really bad idea. Nevertheless, the nature of the media today assures that at town meeting time, the proposal will draw TV cameras and shock-talk yahoos out of the woodwork.
The anti-Souter crusade began in June after the Supreme Court upheld the decision by New London, Conn., to use the power of eminent domain to seize residential property for a commercial redevelopment project. Logan Darrow Clements, a California man unhappy with Souter’s vote with the majority in this case, proposed taking Souter’s home and building the Lost Liberty Hotel in its place.
If you’ve been reading the Monitor’s editorial and forum pages in recent weeks, you know that people in Weare who support Clements's idea are actually trying to wrest credit for this publicity stunt from him. Their fear is that Weare residents will deep-six the proposal if they think outsiders instigated it.
Never mind that townspeople will deep-six it anyway. Souter is Weare’s favorite son and most famous resident. If it had been entirely up to him, he never would have left the place. The vast majority of residents will support him even if they think he was wrong in the New London case. Judges make judgments, and judgments guarantee disagreement.
Besides, the grounds on which Clements and his local posse are operating are beyond foolish. The New London ruling upheld states’ rights and local control – values dear to libertarian hearts. The court did not approve the taking of residential property for a hotel; it approved local citizens’ rights to decide such questions for themselves without a federal bigfoot stepping in to stop them.
There is more wrong with the effort to seize Souter’s home. It is tinged with anger. It turns political disappointment into a personal vendetta. It is the height of phony populism. “If we are unable to acquire Souter’s property, the nation will see that the elite and powerful are exempt from the rules that govern the rest of us,” wrote one local advocate. And while purporting to advance the American dream, this effort ignores the bedrock on which that dream is founded: the rule of law.
The vast majority of the people of Weare will do the right thing when this issue comes before them. Even those who disagree with the New London ruling will see this grandstanding for what it is.
Posted by Mike Pride at January 17, 2006 05:21 PM
Comments
Three points:
1) I've heard the argument of states rights citing the Connecticut constitution as the basis for Souter's vote. This seems somewhat arbitrary as state's right do not always prevail. A classic example was school segregation in Alabama. In my mind, eminent domain is larger than a state's rights.
2) There is an irony here that the taking of Souter's home would be a further blow to individual property owner rights and does not serve the libertarian ideal.
3) The publicity of the Lost Liberty Hotel proposal does serve to put property rights in the public view which I regard as a good thing. Horray for the publicity, I hope the proposal will fail.
Posted by: fullert at January 18, 2006 01:02 PM
I too saw the Homer exhibit at the Clark Institute over MLK weekend. A female friend from Henniker and I ventured to Lenox for a day at the Kripalu Yoga facility, and an evening of NFL playoff TV at a family condo in the region. En-route home sunday, we stopped in Willimastown at the Clark. I'm surprised your blog observations omitted any mention of the luminous content of the Homer paintings,(especially The Bridle Path, White Mountains, 1868) a satisfying antidote to the difficulties of driving home to NH!
Posted by: carolynne shinn at January 18, 2006 03:41 PM