Althouse: "Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Apologizes to Susette Kelo for his Vote to Uphold the Condemnation of Her Home..."

September 20, 2011

"Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Apologizes to Susette Kelo for his Vote to Uphold the Condemnation of Her Home..."

"... But then Lets Himself off the Hook Too Easily."

ADDED: The old Kelo controversy reminds me of one of the most-overused Wisconsin protest chants: "Whose house? OUR HOUSE!"

(LOL. I never noticed that video before. Or if I did, I'd managed to blot out the memory. Smell the cheeseball entitlement.)

16 comments:

Chip S. said...: Did he offer her his house?; 9/20/11, 9:51 AM
Christopher in MA said...: One of the commenters at Reason had the perfect response - she should have kicked him in the balls and then waited 12 years to apologize.

wv - mities. Romneybots; 9/20/11, 10:01 AM
madAsHell said...: I'm sorry I turned your house into an eyesore.

The facts have changed over time.

What. The. FUCK!?!

What about the law?; 9/20/11, 10:05 AM
Wince said...: "Whooose House. Ouuur House. The [private owners] bolted all the windows just to keep out you and meeee."; 9/20/11, 10:13 AM
lemondog said...: What about the......... what did you say?........saw... gaw... raw.... how do ya spell that again?; 9/20/11, 10:21 AM
edutcher said...: "Sorry don't get it done, Dude", as a great American once observed.

Any chance this distinguished jurist might want to file a suit to reverse this mess?

Didn't think so.; 9/20/11, 10:39 AM
Mary Beth said...: His judgement was based on the seen, later he found out about the unseen.

From the Hartford Courant article that Ilya Somin links to:

Q: What were your impressions after meeting Susette Kelo at last year's dinner honoring the Supreme Court?

A: The members of my court … almost never get to meet and observe the parties to its cases. Listening to your talk, and meeting Susette Kelo, gave me … the opportunity to hear firsthand about certain personal, human aspects of the case that we otherwise would not have known about. … While it's almost certainly best that we do not have that opportunity in advance of deciding the case — we do not want to be swayed by personal reactions unrelated to the law of the case — the chance to learn more about the plaintiff's unique situation and perspective was both educational and absorbing.; 9/20/11, 10:47 AM
Known Unknown said...: What about Run's House?; 9/20/11, 11:17 AM
Pastafarian said...: Oh, shit, I just gutted the concept of private ownership of property, essentially making everything the property of the state, which loans said property to you til they decide to take it back.

My bad!; 9/20/11, 11:38 AM
hawkeyedjb said...: A man's home is his castle. Well, except if the city has a Development Plan. Then it's somebody else's castle.

These people always get off far too lightly; they ruin lives, and wave it away: "Oh well. Mistakes are made."

Tar and feathers - literal, flesh-burning tar - would be good for them. A good memory-jogger when the next opportunity comes up for screwing with people's lives.; 9/20/11, 12:11 PM
Anonymous said...: This was a sad and pathetic episode in American legal history. The ruling ought to be reversed at the very first opportunity.; 9/20/11, 12:28 PM
Methadras said...: One of the worst decisions in US history in my opinion. Thankfully many state legislatures headed it off at the pass. Not enough though.; 9/20/11, 1:34 PM
ndspinelli said...: Attorneys and judges attitude can be summed up in one quote, "Let them eat cake."

When the revolution comes..attorneys will be the first to go. And, I'll be able to point them out when they attempt to go underground. A few will be spared..I am benevolent.; 9/20/11, 4:40 PM
Temujin said...: It's just so hard to take these people seriously.; 9/20/11, 5:41 PM
sorepaw said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/20/11, 8:11 PM
bagoh20 said...: This stuff you call "law" is really just a pile common hubris crap isn't it? Ah, but some people are experts at it. Congratulations on that.; 9/20/11, 11:48 PM