Courthouse site owned by justice
By Brandon Ortiz
BORTIZ@HERALD-LEADER.COM
PIKEVILLE -- Pike County plans to acquire downtown buildings owned by state Supreme Court Justice Will T. Scott and members of his family for the site of a proposed courthouse.
Scott, a justice since 2005, said the land deal poses no conflict of interest since he doesn't even want to sell his property.
He's not happy that his office has been selected as the site for the $28.4 million project and would prefer to keep his building at 209 Second Street in Pikeville's downtown. Scott said he hopes his office won't be needed.
Nonetheless, he said he'll accept the county's offer of $360,000 rather than fight condemnation. Scott said he does not want to stand in the way of Pike County's getting a new courthouse.
"I hope the day I breathe my last breath I have a chance to be in this office," Scott said. "And then upon my death it's going to belong to my children. I don't want to sell it. I don't need to sell it."
The Weddington Theater and the building at 209 Second Street in
Pikeville are in a block scheduled for razing in order to build a new
courthouse. Photo by Jerry Boggs | Appalachian News-Express
I grew up in Pikeville and everyone knows he is the biggest thief and liar there ever was. There given more money for his building than for the hotel that is 3 times as big the size of his. His family are really screwed up especially his kids. Everybody knows there all happy to be getting rid of their buildings. Hes no good. Just ask around. I've never trusted him and I never voted for him and I never will.
Posted by:RSFields | May 01, 2008 at 12:53 PM
The State of Kentucky should not buy this deal. We are all being cheated. We can build a courthouse on property from a decent honest family. This whole court is crooked.
Posted by:Jcombs | May 01, 2008 at 06:36 PM
Proving yet again the old adage there is no honor among thieves. Justices - Bull! Sounds to me more like crooks and liars.
Posted by:Lisa Martin | May 02, 2008 at 11:38 AM
See this TIME.com story where it talks about the KY Supreme Court saying I'm not a father despite dna and every Justice knowing I am my son's father. Justice Will T. Scott was the justice who convinced 3 others to vote against me saying promoting a lie is more important than a son having his father in his life.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1736006,00.html?imw=Y
Posted by:James Rhoades | May 06, 2008 at 04:33 PM
Mr. Rhoades, I actually agree with you that the decision was not a very good one from a practical standpoint. The law stating that a child born during a marriage is the child of the married couple in spite who the actual father is, is in my opinion a bad law.
However it's up to the legislature to change that law, not the court. This is precisely the decision I like to see my appellate courts make. It doesn't create new law or engage in social activism. The court cannot, and must not, deal in practicalities or emotional arguments. Sympathy doesn't result in good public policy. The court must examine the law on the basis of its constitutionality.
Your best bet would be to lobby the General Assembly to have the law changed and then re-file your case under the new law.
Posted by:The law is the law | May 06, 2008 at 08:53 PM