Residents of a New Hampshire town have, unfortunately, refused to kick Justice David Souter out of his house to make way for the Lost Liberty Hotel. But it was a glorious effort to call attention to eminent-domain nonsense:
Clements likens himself to firefighters who, to combat a raging blaze in the forest, will sometimes set small fires in its path to starve the original fire of fuel before it can become an all-consuming wildfire, thus "fighting fire with fire." His numerous critics suggest that he's engaging in vigilantism, and that this is tantamount to protesting capital punishment by killing the guy who throws the switch on the electric chair. But that's a hard sell. Vigilantes operate outside the law, and it's illegal to kill the executioner. By contrast, Clements is operating inside the law, illustrating its absurdity by using the law against itself. "Why," he asks, "should the law be beyond its own reach?"
Comments
So the residents of Souter's town think he should be able to keep his house?
Seems to me that is the best proof of everybody else's equal right not to be kicked out of their homes for profit. In fact, I think the Souter case sets some sort of moral precedent for city governments nationwide.
The town's generous act should heap embarrassment on Souter, if he has the conscience to feel it.