Perhaps it's the pseudoephedrine coursing through my system, but for some reason I find this story oddly compelling. Quixotic as their quest may be, the activists seeking to evict David Souter (one of several justices voting "yea" in Kelo) from his home to replace it with a tax-generating hotel have set upon a most concrete way to demonstrate to cloistered, robe-decked intellectuals that abstract decisions have real-world consequences, and that even they are not immune from a bad ruling. Make it "close to home," literally.
But you shouldn't do that! is the natural response. It's unfair to target a justice simply because he ruled a certain way. Yep--which is why a completely unrelated celebrity would have been a better choice. Going after, say, Mel Gibson's mansion in Malibu to bulldoze it and build a convention center... that'd get people's attention. After all, everyone knows who Mel Gibson is.
No comments:
Post a Comment