John Roberts: A Supreme Property Rights Disaster In The MakingMore Kelo on the SCOTUS horizon?...

Pacific Legal Foundation, ONe Republic Journal, Acton Institute, Enter Stage Right ^ | 8/15/05 | James S. Burling

[FReethesheeples]

One thing we do know about Tahoe is that it was a "takings case" and the landowner lost and Roberts, --- & the government, --- won.

[FReethesheeples]

Thank you for your wise words.

[Torie]

Roberts really doesn't "need" to do any of that. He will be confirmed. But of course he will be asked about this in the hearings, and I suspect he will explain what I explained, albeit perhaps with less economic jargin. The hearings should be grand. I plan to take time off to watch them.

[FReethesheeples]

I must say Amen to you @ # 35.

[bobsunshine]

Here is the case and reaction from Lake Tahoe:

Tahoe planner recalls Roberts as 'impressive'
The nominee's win on agency's behalf was one of several before high court.
By Michael Doyle -- Bee Washington Bureau
Published 2:15 am PDT Saturday, July 23, 2005
Story appeared on Page A6 of The Bee

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/local_government/story/13282647p-14124962c.html

And I think this is the actual ruling on the case:

TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL, INC., et al. v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING
AGENCY et al.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=00-1167

[FReethesheeples]

Amen to you at # 31. (To zendari), who sid he "trust"-ed Pres. Bush's vetting of Roberts:

Or to quote Ronald Reagan:

"TRUST," ---

[Bush's vetting of Roberts (up to a point)],

--- "but VERIFY."

[FReethesheeples]

Thanks for the legal citation on the Tahoe case that Roberts argued and the associated links. (Note to Chuck54, who correctly asked for the case citation, here it is, below):

Your (bobsunshine's) statement: "Here is the case and reaction from Lake Tahoe:

"Tahoe planner recalls Roberts as 'impressive'
The nominee's win on agency's behalf was one of several before high court."
By Michael Doyle -- Bee Washington Bureau
Published 2:15 am PDT Saturday, July 23, 2005
Story appeared on Page A6 of The Bee

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/local_government/story/13282647p-14124962c.html

You further stated that:

"And I think this is the actual ruling on the case:

TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL, INC., et al. v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING
AGENCY et al.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=00-1167


Many thanks, Bobsunshine!

[HKMk23]

This does NOT sound good. Not at ALL.

The odor of justice Souter wafts faintly on the breeze...

[elbucko]

And with that, I must be implacably opposed to Roberts ever serving as a judge in any court, let alone the US Supreme Court.

I agree. The US is overpopulated with lawyers who do not know the definition of justice or that the word "Just" represents the = sign in the legal affairs of men.

Roberts is beginning to appear as "just" (='s) another Souter on steroids.

[FReethesheeples]

Heads up!

[FReethesheeples]

Ping & re-ping

[FReethesheeples]

Ping

[FreeReign]

In a nutshell, Roberts argued that impacts to property owners must be balanced against the utility of the regulation–in a way that tilts almost every time in the government’s favor. Unfortunately for the landowners, the Court agreed with him.

Why not cite Robert's argument? Why must we have somebody interpret and tell us what Roberts argued?

[FReethesheeples]

Ping. Heads up!

[elbucko]

So, if you want to take into account externalities, then take into account all known ones. As soon as you include that which stems from the owner's uncertainty about his rights to the property in his possession, it will outweigh any other positive ones you may come across.

Well said.

[bobsunshine]

If the link to the news article goes to login, go to politics,archives,local gov, July 23, 2005 article

[FreeReign]

But why then did he take the case for a “substantially reduced” fee as the chief of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency admits?

Who was the chief of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency at that time? No name is given.

[FReethesheeples]

Most damning of Robert's position in the Regulatory Takings case was that Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion and goes who dissented: Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia!

I quote from the Opening paragraphs of C.J. (Chief Justice) Rehnquist's (joined by Justices Scalia & Thomas) Dissent (as follows):

"Chief Justice Rehnquist, with whom Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.


" For over half a decade petitioners were prohibited from building homes, or any other structures, on their land. Because the Takings Clause requires the government to pay compensation when it deprives owners of all economically viable use of their land, see Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U. S. 1003 (1992), and because a ban on all development lasting almost six years does not resemble any traditional land-use planning device, I dissent."

I


" "A court cannot determine whether a regulation has gone 'too far' unless it knows how far the regulation goes." MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 U. S. 340, 348 (1986) (citing Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. S. 393, 415 (1922)).1 In failing to undertake this inquiry, the Court ignores much of the impact of respondent's conduct on petitioners. Instead, it relies on the flawed determination of the Court of Appeals that the relevant time period lasted only from August 1981 until April 1984. Ante, at 7, 9. During that period, Ordinance 81-5 and Regulation 83-21 prohibited development pending the adoption of a new regional land-use plan. The adoption of the 1984 Regional Plan (hereinafter Plan or 1984 Plan) did not, however, change anything from the petitioners' standpoint. After the adoption of the 1984 Plan, petitioners still could make no use of their land."

[fatima]

Is he a looser?Pro-life is my concern.

[FreeReign]

It appears from this link that Roberts worked with this same James S. Burling of the Pacific Legal Foundation defending Florida property owners against the Endagered Species Act.

It was LLOYD A. GOOD, JR. v. UNITED STATES in the U.S. Fed Circuit Court of Appeals in 1999.