As usual, you're left scratching your head after reading a story by AP scribblers, whose idiot quotient barely rises above a crawling slug.
Rehnquist said, "Further reflection and experience lead me to think that the justifications for its state-litigation requirement are suspect, while its impact on takings plaintiffs is dramatic."
What the hell is that supposed to mean? I bet a few preceeding sentences have some relevance to this non-sequitur, but AP deigns to not give us a clue. Maybe Rehnquist was hitting the sauce and his pants dropped to his knees while chugging back that last gulp and he had to write fast. Who knows?
Let's quote more AP garbage: "The Supreme Court said Monday that people who lose state lawsuits claiming the government improperly took their property cannot count on federal courts for help.'"
Oh, really. So in this ruling the USSC has removed itself from all land disputes involving states. Well, hello federalism, right? States rule...absolutely.
More likely the USSC ruled that in this instance the San Remo Hotel must:
1) pay $567,000 because it reserved rooms for the poor, disabled and elderly.
2) pay $567,000 because it did not want to reserve rooms for the poor, disabled and elderly.
3) Pay $567,000 because it did not pay off the socialists in Frisco.
I guess I'm just tired out from trying to read any sense into a slug trail left by AP nitwits.
Blah!
Well, sarg, I had the head dude at Schute, Mihaly & Weinberg of SFO, the leading GANG-GREEN law firm in these parts, tell me that the Federal Courts were stronger on property rights than the CA courts, even though article 1, Section 1 of the CA constitution is way, WAY stronger than the piddly little fifth amendment on the USCON!!!