I hope that as a society we could advance a bit beyond “an eye for an eye”. Guess not.
I’m saying that if this clown Clements succeeds in his little revenge fantasy it will further legitimize every nutbar and sociopath who thinks the correct response to a court decision they disagree with is to make the judge feel personal repercussions. The difference between Clements and the next guy who tries to shoot a judge is only a matter of degree.
Spare me this semantic hand-waving that this is just “a project in the public interest”. Clements is trying to stick it to Souter, pure and simple. And if he succeeds, we’ll be one step further to a world where judges make decisions based on who will threaten them the least. This is Rush Limbaugh-level crap; don’t expect me to stand by and cheer.
“We kicked a man out of his home out of pure spite! Isn’t that hilarious?”
About the point where you suggested kicking a man out of his home because of his ruling in the eminent domain case that you disagree with.
Are you even reading me? This is not vengeance, it is fairness.
Your use of words intended to stir emotions does not change fact. Clements is not shooting anyone. Clements is building a hotel. Moreover he is building a hotel legally, which shooting someone is not. Are you then going to say that the difference between Pitting someone and murdering them with an axe is merely one of degree? Where does the foolishness end?
It is a project in the public interest. It is also just. It takes no steps toward anything threatening. It’s legal, for pie’s sake! It’s also funny! And last and most fundamentally it is a hotel!
…I have nothing to say to this that makes it sound any more or less foolish than it already is.
It’s the point where you replace “in accordance with” with “because of” that I cease to be able to communicate with you on a rational level.
A while ago, there was a person who had only nasty things to say, and he didn’t even say them in a very smart sounding way. He was throw off the board for this. Later, people talked about how foolish he was to have done so. One person, however, kept insisting that since it was not nice to call other people jerks, no one should call a rose a rose.
I see the same thing happening here. **Orbifold **admits the judge is a jerk, but would rather he be insulated from the consequences of his decision, while Pythian is calling a spade a spade.
I have really, really tried to stay out of this thread. I understand it’s all a big joke. Ha ha ha. Look! Someone’s trying to serve Justice Souter! Ha ha ha.
But the continued suggestion that a judge should make decisions based on his or her personal beliefs, rather than on the law, is not funny. Do you honestly believe that Justice Souter (who is not on my Fantasy Supreme Court, by the way) or any of the justices, frankly, should think about how a decision will affect him personally before making it? This is the same school of thought that says that Justice Thomas should always rule for an African-American party, or that Justice O’Connor should rule for a woman over a man.
Honest judicial thought is impartial, and impervious to the potential personal impact on a particular justice. Indeed, to the extent that a decision will have a material impact on a particular judge, that judge ought to (and usually does) recuse himself. Moreover, judges ought to ignore what the results of their rulings will be on them personally. Think about the federal district court judges in the south in the forties, fifties, and sixties. These men had to stand up to their own communities, make incredibly unpopular decisions, and in the process save the lives and liberties of hundreds, if not thousands, of our fellow citizens whose only “wrong” was the color of their skin.
So, yeah, I bet you a gazillion dollars that Justice Souter doesn’t give a rat’s patootie about this tempest in a teapot. And I bet you a trillion, bazillion, googleplex dollars that if he had it to do all over, even if the town decides to take his home (which, come on, they won’t), he would still make the same decision. I respect that.
Now, back to your regular fun time: woot! Justice Souter going down! Oh, yeah! It just doesn’t get funnier than that. :rolleyes:
It’s only a big joke insofar as no one actually thinks it’ll go through. If it does, it’s still funny, but not nearly so much, and only as a sort of side effect.
No. I’m sorry, but no. Just no. You’re getting my logic completely backwards. You’re saying that I think they should rule based on how it would affect them. I’m saying that they should rule based on how it would affect everyone, then not complain when those effects are applied to them.
You’re bringing in examples that have little to do with this discussion. Please cease to do so.
I respect that as well, and I believe you. That’s the point. I still don’t agree with the decision.
Oh look! Someone making fun of people who get a good laugh out of the Law of Ironic Displacement. No one’s ever done that before. :rolleyes:
I’m afraid I have to paraphrase Pythian now: I have no idea what you’re on about.
Pythian is also advocating kicking Judge Souter out of his home, a fact that he’s curiously loathe to mention, preferring to refer to it as simply “building a hotel” as if the hotel was going up on pristine land. And you insinuate that I’m not calling a spade a spade?
This is calling a spade a spade: what Clements is doing is nothing more than acting out personal revenge in response to a legal decision he didn’t like. And yes, I would bloody well prefer judges not have to worry about those kinds of consequences when making a legal decision. An impartial judiciary isn’t one that has to worry about personal threats, be they threats of violence or a threat that they’ll be kicked out their home whenever someone doesn’t agree with them.
If it were some inner city family being kicked out of their home to build a hotel (not on pristine land), would it make a difference? Souter lives on a piece of land that could generate more revenue for the “common good” as a location for a hotel than it does for a home. That’s what the SCOTUS ruled to be the benchmark.
I hope there is a rash of proposed land seizures from high profile individuals, not just SC judges, to help generate some public awareness to this idiotic ruling.
No. You are not calling a spade a spade. I’m calling a hotel a hotel; you’re calling a perfectly fair, legal action by plenty of nasty names I shan’t repeat.
I fully realise that it is in response to the decision. However, that does not invalidate the fact that he’s building a hotel. After all, he couldn’t have built that hotel without that decision.
I think I have the discrepancy here. You are of the opinion that there cannot be more than one valid reason for an action. I have lived most of my life having at least two reasons for everything I do, both of which are equally valid. The idea that I might think that this hotel is both a hotel and an instrument of ironic displacement simply boggles you. So does the idea that I might call it simply a hotel, not because I am unaware of the ironic displacement in action, but because I wish to keep myself well clear of the many nasty, ridiculous names you’re calling it. It’s a hotel. Keep this in mind. The fact that it’s a hotel does not invalidate the fact that it is being built for more reasons than its hotelness; however, likewise those other reasons do not invalidate the fact that it’s a hotel.
So is ours.
But if the rule exists it might as well reflect on the people who made it. Why should the guy get special exemption from his own rule merely because he was involved in the decision? Now that smacks of a dangerous precedent.
Your poor sensitive ears; I’m so sorry. Am I shocking you by pointing out that your “instrument of ironic displacement” involves kicking Justice Souter out of his home? But you do seem so loathe to mention that, which seems odd to me, as that aspect does seem to be awfully significant.
:rolleyes: Yes, I’m aware it’s a hotel and not, say, a piece of marshmallow fluff.
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.
See, it’s not that I think there cannot be more than one reason for an action. That does not “boggle” me. (And as an aside, it’s so cute when you tell me what I think.) It’s that I don’t give a rat’s patootie about the ostensible economic reason at work.
What does boggle me is your continued insistance on ignoring what would be the very first outcome of Clements’ success: Justice Souter being kicked to the curb. Neither your continued use of the phrase “ironic displacement” nor your distaste for “nasty, ridiculous names” will change that fact that Clements’ little revenge fantasy involves kicking a man out of his home.
If I put a sign on Souter’s lawn saying “Souter is a big fat pooty-head” and then sold lemonade to the resulting crowd, the economic benefit of the lemonade stand doesn’t excuse the manner in which I obtained that benefit. And if it happens that Souter doesn’t like lemonade, the irony thus obtained doesn’t excuse the manner in which I obtained it either.
Finally, on preview:
I am not saying that what Clements is doing is illegal. I’m saying it’s a shitty thing to do, no matter who Clements does it to.
I have, however, forgotten the case in which Judge Greer signed an opinion declaring that it is legal to make death threats. Could you refresh my memory on that?
A hypothetical question for you: suppose Greer had signed such an opinion. Preposterous, of course, but hypothetically suppose it were true. Would that make it right…not legal, but moral…to make death threats against Judge Greer?
Judge Souter’s home is never going to be lost to emminent domain because the town/city/or county where it is located is never going to bring a condemnation suit to buy it.