I was really rooting for Roberts but now have serious reservations.
This analysis, from highly credible & very reputable conservative and libertarian Foundations (Pacific Legal Foundation & Acton Insittute) and publications deserves to be thoroughly examined.
Eminent Domain, Property Rights interest group HEADS UP!
Is there a link to this case decision?
Very disturbing news. Is there any lawyer left that is willing to uphold the Constitution?
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'm not going to jump on this quite yet. 50000+ pages of work and you are bound to find a few that you disagree with.
I trust Bush on judicial appointees and I trust john roberts.
Why, because he holds it legal that Congress can regulate interstate commerce and states can regulate intrastate commerce? It is pretty clear that the Constitution says that Congress can regulate interstate Congress. That puts the onus on us to elect Congresscritters who understand some economics.
Negative externalities not incorporated into the price system are a bitch. Land use is all about economic externalities, positive and negative. Ranting about takings, while ignoring the economic externalities, is well, obtuse. Take another shot. This one misses.
Speechless.
This is a scary fellow.
"I was really rooting for Roberts but now have serious reservations."
I haven't trusted the guy since he gave his nomination acceptance speech and called our Republic a "constitutional democracy."
I saw that as a code word to the "living constitution" folks.
I smell a civil war on the horizon if we don't start putting some people in Washington that are true to the Oaths that they swear that UPHOLD AND DEFEND the Constitution of these United States.
This statement in itself could mean anything. I for one am not going to sway back and forth with every article that comes out on Roberts. The stuff I have been able to dig up on him shows him to be conservative.
Lawyers work for people and argue their cases, criminal lawyers defend known murderers frequently and try to get them off. I do not know for sure if he actually utter these words or not and will not allow myself to think one way or another until I can research this on my own and find out what he actually said and what he argued for or against.
The main thing is this, there is nothing in what this article says that indicates he is for the public purpose stance of the supreme court, what the article talks about is the compensation factor. We don't know what the whole case was in Tahoe but I am going to find out and as far as the quote he made about the 5th amendment I am going to find out what he meant by that, indeed, I am going to find out if he even said it.
NO LONGER A JOKE .....
One man says to a second man: "Do you believe in the First Amendment freedom of speech?"
The second man says: "Of course I do."
The first man then asks: "Do you believe in the Second Amendment freedom to bear arms?"
The second man replies: "No, I don't."
The first man insists: "Then shut up!"
The moral of the story is: you can have your rights, but you have to protect and defend them, too.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
Ronald Reagan
This does NOT sound good. Not at ALL.
The odor of justice Souter wafts faintly on the breeze...
Ping
Why not cite Robert's argument? Why must we have somebody interpret and tell us what Roberts argued?
Ping. Heads up!
Who was the chief of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency at that time? No name is given.
It was LLOYD A. GOOD, JR. v. UNITED STATES in the U.S. Fed Circuit Court of Appeals in 1999.