Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 08/19/2005 8:41:48 PM PDT by FReethesheeples

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-140 next last
To: Congressman Billybob
It is obvious from even this biased account of the Lake Tahoe case that it concerns zoning, not taking. This is NOT the equivalent of the reprehensible Kelo case.

Excellent point. Some of these hit pieces are embarassing at the stretches they make and the detail they leave out. And from the sound of it, there were real concerns with the lack of infrastructure in the area to handle sewage which is why the restrictions were put in place.

101 posted on 08/20/2005 5:37:12 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT

Within FIVE years.


102 posted on 08/20/2005 5:57:39 AM PDT by frankiep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
Remember, republicans have appointed 7 of the 9 current justices. We can't blame Clinton or the democrats for what the SCOTUS has become. What about the Bork nomination?
103 posted on 08/20/2005 7:10:29 AM PDT by zendari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: atlanta67
interesting you say that cuz Mark Levin supports John Roberts

Maybe it was this ED stuff was known? Judging from his comments and stand on his show, seems like a fierce Constitution defender. Property rights are the fundamental cornerstone of our system, otherwise it is Helloooo Communism!

104 posted on 08/20/2005 7:27:54 AM PDT by Leo Carpathian (FReeeePeee!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Leo Carpathian
Maybe it was before this ED stuff was known? Sorry
105 posted on 08/20/2005 7:29:10 AM PDT by Leo Carpathian (FReeeePeee!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

I disagree and I'm shocked to hear you say that


It's based on zoning, yes... a 20 something year old zoning rule that the area is "blighted" which is no longer applies, since the area is no longer blighted.

It was never repealed, and then used to seize the property.

Legalized theft.


106 posted on 08/20/2005 7:41:44 AM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: FReethesheeples

The full moon was yesterday.


107 posted on 08/20/2005 8:04:21 AM PDT by RightWhale (Withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty and open the Land Office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: adam_az
It was never repealed, and then used to seize the property. Legalized theft.

The property wasn't seized.

108 posted on 08/20/2005 8:04:53 AM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Leo Carpathian

If you're going to support him, you should at least be able to spell his name.


109 posted on 08/20/2005 8:06:11 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

"The property wasn't seized."

The owners were forced to "sell"

They did not have the option to retain posession of it.

I'd call that seized.


110 posted on 08/20/2005 8:09:57 AM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: atlanta67

Never mind all that; they're busy doing the Democrats work for them.


111 posted on 08/20/2005 8:10:22 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Thanks Billybob.

I suspect the lastest ploy of the left is to use conservatives to sink Roberts.

112 posted on 08/20/2005 8:11:27 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

Some people are sure giving it the "old college try."


113 posted on 08/20/2005 8:12:09 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: adam_az
"The property wasn't seized."

The owners were forced to "sell" They did not have the option to retain posession of it. I'd call that seized.

TRP required that the property owners sell the property? To whom? I've not seen that? That sounds incorrect.

Document your claim.

114 posted on 08/20/2005 8:21:57 AM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
I suspect the lastest ploy of the left is to use conservatives to sink Roberts.

Yes, but I don't think their aim is to defeat Roberts. I think they have bigger fish to fry.

Their aim IMO is to split the conservative vote in 2008. Their target is conservative emotions. The prognosis for what they wish to do is good -- apparently.

115 posted on 08/20/2005 8:27:32 AM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
Their aim IMO is to split the conservative vote in 2008. Their target is conservative emotions.

I agree. You should see the hate being directed at Santorum -- probably our most principled senator -- by "conservatives".

116 posted on 08/20/2005 8:52:44 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
No, it doesn't surprise me.
117 posted on 08/20/2005 9:23:22 AM PDT by satchmodog9 (Murder and weather are our only news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Torie
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.

The balance of externalities is not for a court or government agency to decide as long as the means exist for the market to incorporate them. Unfortunately, the mere existence of the government option destroys any potential for a market in those goods and risks.

118 posted on 08/20/2005 9:23:39 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: FReethesheeples

Hmmm.


119 posted on 08/20/2005 9:27:09 AM PDT by tame (Are you willing to be as SHAMELESS for the truth as leftists are for a lie?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

The market does not work to well in this area, thus the externalities. By definition the existence of externalities means the market has not incorporated them into the price system, whether by vouchers or some other device (which would in and of itself require regulation). The existence of externalities is one factor considered by the courts when evaluating whether a taking has occurred by regulation of a temporal nature.


120 posted on 08/20/2005 9:30:42 AM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-140 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson