Residents on Saturday rejected a proposal to evict U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter from his farmhouse to make way for the "Lost Liberty Hotel."Um, wouldn't a lack of turnout indicate a lack of support? Face the facts, New Hampshire residents don't like eminent domain for private gain and they aren't going to support it--even against an eminent domain proponent like Souter.
A group angered by last year's court decision that gave local governments more power to seize people's homes for economic development had petitioned to use the ruling against the justice.
But voters deciding which issues should go on the town's March ballot replaced the group's proposal with a call to strengthen New Hampshire's law on eminent domain.
"This is a game," said Walter Bohlin. "Why would we take something from one of ours? This is not the appropriate way."
Souter, who grew up in Weare, a central New Hampshire town of 8,500, has not commented on the matter and was not at the meeting.
Joshua Solomon, a member of the Committee for the Protection of Natural Rights, was disappointed with the vote.
"We lost today, not because there isn't support in this town but because the turnout wasn't here," he said. "It's not exactly the message we intended to have." [AP]
The "Lost Liberty" hotel plan was out of line from the start--simple Libertarian mindlessness. You don't meet outrage with outrage--you meet it with a moral argument.