Posted on 08/19/2005 8:41:48 PM PDT by FReethesheeples
Roberts is looking more and more like Scalia with each passing day.
Just great.
Are you basing that on other cases you agree with? Or Trust simply because he is a Bush nominee?
I'm basing it on most of the news I have heard about him including his position on other issues such as affirmative action and abortion.
Like I said before, you aren't going to agree 100% with anyone on anything.
His argument was cited several times elsewhere in the threads, and the legal citation is is Linked herein above.
Its called a "Regulatory Taking" when a normal use of property occurs through zoing or other restricitve actions by Public or State agency.
Its called a "Regulatory Taking" when a restriction on a normal use of property occurs through zoing or other restricitve actions by Public or State agency.
Acton Institute, and Pacific Legal Institute and the two publications which published this are NOT "Tools of the Left."
They are highly reputable and credible conservative-libertarian policy and legal think tanks as anyone whois informed on their activities will tell you.
;-)
We all have our list of priorities.
Yes, and this was a 36 month moratorium on building and the issue was were the landowners required to be compensated for such a moratorium. The Bush administration argued for the same side as Roberts. Roberts actually took the case as a favor to a friend who was a law professor at Chicago University. The professor was apparently too busy and asked Roberts to plea the case before the Supreme Court. Boston Globe did a story on this and other environmental cases that Roberts was involved in and paint a different picture of Roberts, but offers a reasonably balanced view considering the source. Roberts actually rulings, which is probably a more accurate views of his true beliegs, show Roberts is very supportive of property rights.
Well, they are conservative but whether they are tools of the left is something upon which I am reserving judgement.<p.
Thanks for chiming in here, I always look to see what you have to say on legal issues.
"One thing we do know about Tahoe is that it was a "takings case" and the landowner lost and Roberts, --- & the government, --- won."
Do we really know that. The land use case in Tahoe started 30 years ago according to the article, but Roberts did not come into this until 2002.
Also, I checked your link and the article there had links to the Hawaii case, the San Francisco case and the Kelo case, but no link to the case in Tahoe. I would like to know how this case came about 30 years ago before I make any final decisions. I will keep this article in mind in the mean time.
Regretably, I don't trust GWB on much of anything anymore. He has proved all his critics from the right in 1999 correct.
Ah..a fairly basic "tradgedy of the commons". That said, if it is in the interest of the community to diminish the people's ability to use their land, there should be a corresponding tendency for compensation.
There should, but in practice it gets very complicated. Just read the case in question. If that doesn't give you a headache, nothing well. I am a lawyer, and it gave me a headache, and I am used to the cadence of the prose. Sometimes moratoria enhance land values rather than diminish them, for example. The land market is so wonderfully complex. That is why I love it so, and the intersection of that with the law, sends me sometimes into ecstasy. Nothing out there is better.
Without context, this is a truism...else the Constitution would have spelled it out, instead of using a subjective term.
As example, would "just" be to pay for the property at previous uninformed purchase price (Even if bought 60 years ago)? At price plus 10%? At new market rates? At double rates? At replacement cost? At the value of what the land will be used for by the government?
What a jerk
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.