Consider it a 'Motion for Rehearing'

I tried really hard, but I just couldn't pass up this story. . . .

Remember last week when the Supreme Court shook up the entire area of Eminent Domain by ruling that private economic development could constitute a public purpose that would justify the taking of private property? (If not, you can see this article.) One advocate disagrees with the Court's ruling and has found an interesting way of forcing the Justices to reconsider. The tactic: See how the Justices like losing their own property.

As the article states, the CEO of Freestar Media wrote a letter advocating replacing Justice Souter's home with a hotel. While this is certainly an amusing tactic, some how I doubt it will be very effective. How likely is it that a town would replace a Supreme Court Justice's home with a hotel? (Unless the selectmen, and probably most of the town, disagree with the Court's ruling) Second, is there any sort of proof that the hotel would be successful and generate greater tax income for the town? (Wait a minute, what am I talking about? This is government, they don't need no stinkin proof.) Doesn't it seem likely that even if the town takes Justice Souter's home he will just use the compensation the town would be required to pay him to buy a similar house?