The "Lost Liberty Hotel" strikes me as a stunt, and a darned effective one. Unless the board of selectmen acts to approve the taking of Souter's property, which seems unlikely, there is in effect no force being used against Souter - it's more like a warning shot across the bow. It seems Souter has already approved this sort of theft, so how do I know he wouldn't agree to it, and consider it just? I'm sure he doesn't agree with the specific instance but he's apparently agreed on principle (or lack of it) to the practice.

I think it might be particularly interesting to hear from New Hampshire residents on this one. At the Freedom Summit last week, I was frankly surprised by much of what I heard about state level politics from local people and speakers. As a friend who resides in NH remarked, people consider politics the local sport, and consider their representatives accessible (or else). It almost felt like a throwback to the workings of an old republic from the history books... rather than the tyranny by democratic and very confused majority that seems typical of US politics.

At least Mr. Souter won't be faced by robed nazgul, should he contend with the necessity of reclaiming his home, or contesting the eminent domain taking procedure. Instead, I imagine he'll have to contend with some angry neighbors at town hall or the town court. It wouldn't surprise me if a "for sale" sign goes up soon, and Mr. Souter moves to Washington D.C. where it sounds like he might feel more at home.

It would seem consistent to consider the use of the court as a use of the state against itself... I thought that's why the court was originally established to act as a check on the powers of the executive office and the legislative branch. The SCOTUS apparently sold out individual property rights to "collective" interests. It may not be the purest moral position I can take, but I'm still giggling at the thought that those who sell out to vultures might be the first to watch them circling overhead.

What sets wrong with me about this, in line with Sunni's original objection as I understand it, is that happenings regarding an individual's private property in another state which I have no direct interest in, should seem my business at all. The SCOTUS' ruling effectively makes it a concern to all private property owners who are paying attention. That's what governments do - turn private matters into public spectacles, and package individual interests in bulk for selling down the river to the highest paying collective bidder. For this "we the people" pay taxes - or not... ;)