Pirate's Cove

Took almost a month, but the AP and Washington Post finally realized there had been a movement to sieze SCOTUS Judge David Souter’s house, persuant to the KELO v New London decision, with a hotel.

Near the foot of an unmarked, dead-end dirt road sits a humble, mud-colored farmhouse more than 200 years old. A sign on the mailbox reads "SOUTER."

Some folks want to make that "Hotel Souter."

People from across the country are joining a campaign to seize Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter’s farmhouse to build a luxury hotel, according to the man who suggested it after Souter joined the majority that sided with New London, Conn., in a decision favoring government seizure of private property.

We know someone is working hard at the AP (snicker.) Guess they have a tough time getting away from their Bush Bashing exercises while still being "neutral" (double snicker.) But this part is just silly:

Souter has declined to comment on the matter, but he has defenders, such as Betty Straw, his sixth-grade teacher. "I think it’s absolutely ridiculous," she said. "They’re just doing it for spite."

Spite? Gee, you think? Is it right to attempt to seize his house? Yes. Should it actually be seized? No. Nothing wrong with causing some issues for Souter after his disgusting ruling in KELO. Folks should do the same thing to the other SCOTUS Judges who voted to allow the homes to be seized. If it actually happened that Souter would lose his home, then they should just say, "we made our point" and let him keep it. The SCOTUS needs to realize that there are actual American human beings that are affected by their rulings. Their rulings aren’t some sort of intellectual exercise.

Captain Ed has more.

Read: AP and the Washington Post catch up »