Forgive me as I indulge in what surely must be one of the most WRONG responses you ever see from me. But I can't help but rejoice in glee at this development:

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Oh, yes! Please, PLEASE proceed! Think of how valuable such a landmark would be:

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

While I'm rather close to being a libertarian myself, I'm also rather a foe of some of the wrong-headed thinking behind Rand's muddle-headed "Objectivism". After all, our individual rights in the US originated from Natural Law, grounded in theism, whereas atheism, as a governmental philosophy has produced only bloodshed. To imply otherwise is nothing short of historical revisionism.

However, I think such an opinion could be a valuable part of public discourse, and if I don't like it, I should object by building another museum, offering an opposing viewpoint.

I wonder how much land Ruth Bader-Ginsberg has available for me?