I must say that after reading all of these comments and thinking it over, I find myself much more sympathetic to those who support this action than I did before. I do have a couple of additional comments though.

1) A couple of you have now mentioned that this action would put the justices "on notice". While this would indeed be true, it in itself guarantees nothing. This act changes nothing other than that it may scare the judges a bit.

2) It seems to me that such aggressive action is justified if it serves to correct a wrong, thus providing justice.

How does this act accomplish this? What is going to happen to Souter's property? Isn't the new owner simply going to be the owner of stolen land, making his claim to property rather unjust?

I tend to believe that two wrongs don't make a right. I still don't see how justice will be served by this action. As Billy Beck mentioned in regards to the Ragnar character: "The whole point of Ragnar's mission was to return values to their rightful owners. There is nothing about that principle in the cases involving these two judges."

So, while I'm becoming increasingly sympathetic with those who support this action against Souter, I'm still not sold on why I should support it.