# SC Judge Souter may lose home via eminent domain **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [June 28, 2005, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-judge-souter-may-lose-home-via-eminent-domain/310257 "2005-06-28T19:35:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-judge-souter-may-lose-home-via-eminent-domain/310257/61 "2005-06-30T20:51:13Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > I hope that as a society we could advance a bit beyond “an eye for an eye”. Guess not. Sadly, the only way some people will learn that you shouldn’t play with pointed sticks is by having their own eyes gouged out. While you’re at it, you might as well bemoan the fact that people don’t understand the importance of environmental regulations until their own lives are threatened by pollution. Given that the decision which inspired this incident **wasn’t** unanimous, I think that it can safely be said that there was a lot of room for “creative” interpretation on the part of the justices. If it takes action against their personal property for them to realize the consequences of their ruling, that’s sad, but better those actions are taken, than for the people to stand mute. Had this decision been unanimous, your arguments would have more weight, since that would prove that the laws were quite clear on the matter. With the justices split 5-4 (IIRC), it’s clear that the decision was **not** based solely on codified laws, but on the interpretation of those laws. ---
**Author:** ![Ponder\_Stibbons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ponder_stibbons/32/343_2.png) [@Ponder\_Stibbons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ponder_Stibbons)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-judge-souter-may-lose-home-via-eminent-domain/310257/62 "2005-06-30T20:59:44Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > … > I’m also aware that he didn’t choose just any land for this little scheme of his. He deliberately choose Justice Souter’s home, because of Souter’s agreement with the majority decision. Which makes this act one of personal revenge, in addition to one of hotel construction. > … Well, of _course_ it’s revenge. Of _course_ it’s political. That’s the point. Do you think politicians never act out of revenge or aim for personal gain? Come look at politics in the city of Dallas some time, where it’s par for the course to use city resources (including the police) to intimidate people whose businesses compete with businesses owned by supporters of city councilmen. As a result of this decision, all a councilman has to do to get rid of inconvenient competition is force said competition to sell out to his supporter by reason of eminent domain. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-judge-souter-may-lose-home-via-eminent-domain/310257.md?page=3)