Quote:
|
Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wholly Goats
Excuse me, but it was indeed frivolous, but eminently reasonable.
|
But if it's reasonable, then it isn't frivolous. |
It was frivolous because I'm fairly sure that anyone who read the prospectus regarding the "Lost Liberty Hotel" would have known that it was done in jest. But that does not exclude it from the bounds of common sense...in other words, it was a potentially reasonable request, given the powers which the SCOTUS had assured with the
Kelo decision.
And don't tell me one cannot make a valid point with humor, as you engage in it with some frequency.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Would not Justice Souter's home provide a greater public benefit as a hotel than as his private home?
|
I don't think so. It will be a far greater public benefit in a few decades when it's opened to the public as a memorial to Justice Souter's legacy. Future use is part of the eminent domain/public use calculus as well.
|
Whoa! And you think that as many people would pay good money to visit the home of some fusty old SCOTUS justice at some indefinite date in the future? Hell, I live in the PNW and I still have no idea where Justice Douglas' home is or whether they even offer tours. And I'm just an slightly better educated member of the non-legal professional masses. But a chance to rent a room in the "Lost Liberty Hotel"? Wacka! Even if the rubes didn't have a half a brain (like Lyin'Dan), they might still take the opportunity to pay good money to stay in a nice B&B type hotel in New Hampshire. Particularly if they had decent muffins at breakfast.
Your calculus sucks, Scarlatti. The future use as a fusty, musty old memorial to some obscure justice just doesn't rate with a booming B&B hotel. Get with the program, man!