But there appears to be great public interest in this project!
ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease
Actually, I still haven’t figured out how to say “pwned”.
Spite might very well be in the greater public interest, in this case.
Somebody told me it’s pronounced [POE-nd], but half the time I still say it [PEE-wand]. Go figure.
Justice Souter is widely perceived as one of the liberal members of the Supreme Court, and the decision allowing for municipal condemnation of private property to be turned over to other private interests for development that may result in a higher tax base for that property is seen as a victory for the liberals. How do our board liberals see that?
Hint: Some of our Board conservatives are aghast.
It’s a matter of much debate, actually.
I like “pawned” or “powned”, though I’ve heard “owned, with a P!”
I used to say it exactly as it’s written: p-w-n’d. Like “puh-wnn’d” without the “uh”.
Then again I pronounce GIS with two syllables: “gay-ish”, which is almost as amusing a phonetic rewrite as “pee-wand”. I can just see someone telling someone: Your pwned is GIS. and the utter confusion that would result… 
As to actual thread topic: Yay. Poetic justice, the Law of Ironic Displacement, et cetera. Woo.
Oh, I love the irony of this one, too. Especially since I’ve what the threat of having one’s property taken by eminent domain to “revitalize” an area can do. The end result was several downtown businesses out of business and not only did no major retailer move in or redevelopment occur; two large retailers closed their doors. There’s a Wiccan belief that says, “What you put into the world comes back at you three times over.” There’s a Christian belief that says you reap what you sow. It would suit my sense of justice if Justice Souter got to experience the consequences of his decision first hand.
CJ
By the way, Pythian Habenero, I’ve seen you around a bit recently, and I’m hoping you will stick around. I mean, come on! Where else can you get good, interesting conversation and godawful puns any time you like, including 4:00 am?!
Oh, I just love it. If it does happen, I now know where to tell people to stay when visiting my state.
I can’t say I speak for all liberals, just most of the liberals I have talked to, and myself, but I would have to say aghast is a good word. Appalled is closer. Angered would probably work as well. I am not coming up with a B word, because I haven’t had coffee yet, but the C word that keeps coming to mind is Confused.
The Supreme Court justices are supposed to be educated men and women. How the heck does anyone that passed 9th grade civics classes come up with a decision like this one.
Ok thats the most I should say or this will join the other threads on this topic in GD or the pit.
(Just thought of the B word. Balistic.)
Invisitext! Grumble…Grumble…Grumble…
This is simply political grandstanding and it has no chance of ever coming to pass. Our legal system likes by-the-book and rational a lot more than it likes cute and clever, and it likes entrenched interests a lot more than it likes upstart punks.
Narrow-minded literal reading of the law only goes one way, in other words.
I very much wish everything I said above were otherwise. It would do me good to see those idiotic justices who supported this travesty kicked to the curb.
Well, thanks for that. It’s always nice to be appreciated.
As for my sticking around… it’s being discussed. 
I wasn’t going to, but so many people are telling me I should… I believe I’ve been swayed by public opinion. Well, public opinion and EddyTeddyFreddy offering to pay my way. Nothing like a free subscription to talk a gal into sticking around.
Whee! A convert!
Anybody else see this?
For the sake of the chorus, here’s a board liberal who thinks that the SC decision and this petty little bit of harassment are both disgraces.
This decision is horrific, but with all of the bullshit posturing and occasional outright threats that judges have to endure, taking personal revenge against judges for decisions we don’t like is a bad idea.
(And as far as Souter being “perceived as one of the liberal members” of the court, maybe you should take that up with the President who nominated him.)
Yes. It is. I agree with that.
But I still think this project is poetic justice. Why? Because it’s poetic justice. It’s people using the Law of Ironic Displacement to show this character the ramifications of his decision. If he truly agrees with the idea he won’t object to losing his house for a hotel which will benefit the public in many ways, including making them laugh by its very existence. If he doesn’t he shouldn’t have voted for it. It’s not as though he can take permanent harm from it - after all, he’ll be paid just compensation. :rolleyes:
“Poetic justice” is a cop-out. If it’s wrong to take away poor people’s homes to build a strip mall, then it’s wrong to take away Souter’s home to build a hotel.
It will set a precedent that it’s okay to make court decisions personal. Have you forgotten the bullshit that went on in Florida during the Schiavo cases? Judge Greer received death threats over that. Now this Clements person wants to take personal revenge against David Souter in response to a legal decision. If he succeeds, he’ll just further legitimize the idea that it’s okay to threaten judges if we don’t like how they interpret law.
Hell, why don’t we just throw any pretense of court impartiality out the window? We’ll make damn well sure judges know that if they make decisions we don’t like we’ll make their lives hell afterwards. Judges won’t really be in danger as long as they agree with the most vocal majority, so it’ll be fine. Really!
Yes. But you see, Souter made it legal to do both. It is not dishonourable to show him what that means. That’s what poetic justice is.
I have no idea what you’re going on about here.
Except this isn’t a threat. It’s a project in the public interest. If they build a hotel where his house is, there will be a hotel there. People will laugh about it, and it will be a hotel.
…I am seeing a lot of anger, a lot of distortion, and very little rationality. This does not help your case. Where did I suggest making the lives of judges difficult when they make choices we don’t like? We are simply applying the decision he made to him. If he doesn’t like it, he shouldn’t have made that decision. Poetic. Justice.