Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 08/19/2005 8:41:48 PM PDT by FReethesheeples
From 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
Ping
From your Link | certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit | Excerpt : Respondent Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) imposed two moratoria, totaling 32 months, on development in the Lake Tahoe Basin while formulating a comprehensive land-use plan for the area.Respondent Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) imposed two moratoria, totaling 32 months, on development in the Lake Tahoe Basin while formulating a comprehensive land-use plan for the area.Respondent Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) imposed two moratoria, totaling 32 months, on development in the Lake Tahoe Basin while formulating a comprehensive land-use plan for the area.
Seems to be a contradiction. Was the case about a 30 year moratorium or a 32 month moratorium?
ping
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
From your Link | certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit | Excerpt : Respondent Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) imposed two moratoria, totaling 32 months, on development in the Lake Tahoe Basin while formulating a comprehensive land-use plan for the area..
Seems to be a contradiction. Was the case about a 30 year moratorium or a 32 month moratorium?
Ditto ping to freepatriot32.
does it suprise anyone here that a total globilist whore that created a trillion dollar prescription drug program and signed the biggest pork laden farm bill and highway bill in history and who is 100 percent behind nafta gat and cafta would only apoint someone to the supreme court who is nothing but a big governemt supporting whore himself?
bush made damn sure ahead of time that roberts would not make any ruling that would every shrink the size or scope of the federal government or hamper big business against the little peons in flyover country.After all he has a legacy to protect.
But Pacific Legal Foundation does not have an entirely pristine record, as much as I support many of its efforts. I recall attending a fund-raising affair some years ago at which speakers discussed their various sterling efforts. After the public discussions, I asked their legal counsel how they could support seizure of property (forfeitures) by law enforcement so the agencies could get the money/value from the properties taken. He replied something along the line that police and law enforcement are supporters of the PLF, so they don't want to take sides against them.
Take the example just now in the news about the seizure of Duke Cunningham's home, allegedly purchased with money obtained as a bribe. Yes, a grand jury is allegedly hearing evidence against Cunningham, but the feds decided to go ahead and seize his home. Automatically it no longer belongs to Cunningham and he must sue to prove his right of ownership. If he fails, he will never get it back or any part of the money he put into it. Guilt first; charges, trial, etc., later - maybe. That is law in the U.S. affecting ordinary people everyday. In Cunningham's case, it makes the news because he is/was a public figure.
Want me to put you on my property rights list?
"In a notorious case in 2002, John Roberts, then a private attorney, argued that several dozen mostly elderly and middle class landowners should not receive a penny in compensation even after a local land use agency had prohibited all use of their property near Lake Tahoe for nearly 30 years.
"In a nutshell, Roberts argued that impacts to property owners must be balanced against the utility of the regulationÖin a way that tilts almost every time in the governmentÒs favor.
"Unfortunately for the landowners, the Court agreed with him.
[My note here: ominously, Justice Stevens wrote the majority deicison (joined by the liberal (Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg & teh "Interenational Law" guy) and 2 the "swing(-er)" Justices, O'Connor and Kennedy, while, --- You got it, --- Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas DISSENTED from Roberts' otherwise winning argument.]
Of course, one might argue, Roberts was only doing what he was being paid to do as a high-priced lawyer to represent his client. But why then did he take the case for a Ósubstantially reducedÔ fee as the chief of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency admits?
"More disturbingly, RobertÒs representation of the agency is entirely consistent with the statist philosophy he expressed in a 1978 Harvard Law Review article on land use law. He argued against clear rules that would put boundaries on government power over property in favor of essentially the same government-friendly Óbalancing testÔ that he advocated for in the Lake Tahoe case.
"Even more troubling, he proposed a scheme that would deny money to landowners whose property is taken, using the sort of rhetoric that reminds us of Bill ClintonÒs prevarications over the meaning of the word Óis.Ô Roberts wrote: ÓThe very terms of the fifth amendment, furthermore, are sufficiently flexible to accommodate changing notions of what compensation is Ñjust.ÒÔ
"Put another way, what we have here is not the Óliving constitutionÔ so derided by strict constructionists, but a Ómutating virusÔ infinitely malleable in the service of the state, and undeniably threatening to the rights of property owners. Justice OÒConnor was a swing vote on property; with Roberts it will be the property owners who will be twisting in the wind."
--- James Burling is a principal attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation, the nationÒs oldest and largest public interest legal organization dedicated to defending private property rights. This commentary appeared in the August 15 issues of Enter Stage Right and The One Republic Journal.
okay, free
Pinging the pingers
Heads up!
Heads up!
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.