January 22, 2006
Dang Kelo, But Dang Californians More
January 22, 2006 04:35 AM
I am amused by the prospect of having a group of media-hungry conservatives go before the council of a town so small it has no hotels, and tell them to evict Weare's most famous resident in order to build an inn.
Yes, they're still on about it.
[This post makes no representations as to whether people in New Hampshire actually say "Dang."]
Aren't protesters almost always media-hungry by definition? From the left as well as the right?
Indeed, protestors are usually looking for publicity, but this is a group that is claiming to have a serious interest in developing Weare's economy by evicting Justice Souter and turning his home into an inn. To the degree that this is all a publicity stunt, the town council is like to tell them to shut up and go home.
I haven't checked the Restatement on Torts in a long, long time. But isn't there a tort theory of intentional infliction of harm that Justice Souter might be able to pursue? Keep in mind that in Kelo, the renewal project did not start in the same manner as this proposal in Souter's hometown. Now, I don't think that Souter would assert such a claim, but perhaps there are others who may have standing to do so, such as abutters. Let's hear it from some of you law students out there.
It's a wonkier version of the Crawford protests. I'd like to think that Souter appreciates the irony.
PG's right that the town council will presumably throw the proposal out, but that's a win-win situation for the anti-Kelo forces, since they can use that action as grist for the argument that Kelo disproportionately threatens people who are not well-connected.
Shag, I'm not sure that there's a tort of malicious lobbying (although the Abramoff case may force the creation of one). :-)
Consider "Conspiracy", both criminal and civil. In addition to two or more conspiring to do something unlawful, it includes doing something lawful in an unlawful manner. Do you suppose that discovery in litigation against these anti-Souters exercising their lawful right of petition might disclose some unlawful manner of doing so?