Posted on 06/21/2019 1:15:24 PM PDT by reaganaut1
...
In addition to being a victory for property owners, Knick v. Township of Scott is also notable for featuring some sharp words from Justice Clarence Thomas directed at the federal government. As Thomas noted in a concurring opinion, the U.S. solicitor general filed an amicus brief in the case which argued that "the failure to provide contemporaneous compensation for a taking does not violate the Fifth Amendment if the government has provided an adequate mechanism for obtaining just compensation."
What's wrong with that? Here is a sample of Thomas' rather pointed rebuke to the federal government:
The United States…urges us not to enforce the Takings Clause as written. It worries that requiring payment to accompany a taking would allow courts to enjoin or invalidate broad regulatory programs "merely" because the program takes property without paying for it. According to the United States, "there is a 'nearly infinite variety of ways in which government actions or regulations can affect property interests,' and it ought to be good enough that the government "implicitly promises to pay compensation for any taking" if a property owner successfully sues the government in court. Government officials, the United States contends, should be able to implement regulatory programs "without fear" of injunction or invalidation under the Takings Clause, "even when" the program is so far reaching that the officials "cannot determine whether a taking will occur." [Citations omitted.]
In short, Thomas exhibited exactly zero patience towards what he called the federal government's "sue me" stance. If Knick v. Township of Scott "makes some regulatory programs 'unworkable in practice,'" Thomas declared, "so be it—our role is to enforce the Takings Clause as written."
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Honolulu is considering a law that would fine you for not renting your residential property (e.g., keeping it vacant), in the form of a property “surtax.” San Francisco, Oakland and L.A. are also now proposing to do the same thing.
Seems to me to be even more unconstitutional than rent control, of course the second hit will be that once you’re forced to rent your property, then they will rent control it.
“Benchslaps” lol.
Just go ahead and say it; “B*tchSlap”.
That makes quite the image. He always seems so calm and controlled.
You are correct.
There are many other unconstitutional takings that have been winked at by the Progressive Supreme Court.
The EPA takes property right and left and needs to be reined in.
We need eight other Clarence Thomas justices.
Now you see why they fought him so hard.
Now you see why Thomas never gets involved in “oral arguments”. The left would crucify him. The way that racist young Senator Joe Biden tried but failed to do during Thomas’s confirmation hearing lo those many years ago. Clarence Thomas is a treasure. God bless him.
Thomas has been spending a lot of this term writing separately. It’s almost always worth reading, be it an opinion, concurrence, or dissent. I don’t always agree with him, but usually do.
Make him Chief Justice. Would prefer him over anyone else. A great justice.
“Make him Chief Justice.“
Too bad that ship sailed. W could have done it. Instead we got back stabbing Roberts.
May God bless Clarence Thomas.
An editor, say from Regnery or The Federalist Society should put together “A Clarence Thomas Reader.”
His writings are typically a fresh breeze of rationality and truth through our Constitutional history.
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.