Replies

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

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!

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."