Posted on 03/28/2023 12:21:24 PM PDT by Navy Patriot
The three liberal justices on the Supreme Court joined together with the appointees of former President Donald Trump in deciding in favor of Montana property owners fighting a federal land grab.
The Washington Examiner reported liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson united with Trump appointed Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh in the majority opinion.
Justice Clarence Thomas, who was appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, along with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two appointees of former President George W. Bush, voted in the minority.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Not a surprise.
Deep Staters don’t want the Hoi polloi on their property.
private property ... how quaint ...
i’d like to hear Thomas’ opinion why he voted against
Well, I have barbed-wire fences and concertina wire around the perimeter of my property to do just that. Isn't that what "Private Property" means? The ability to keep anyone out who doesn't have specific permission to be there?
It meant that while we still had a republic.
Now private property, like the law, is whatever Deep State decides it is.
There is an ancient common law principle that if people use part of your land as a path or road then you can’t close it off.
You want an eye-opener concerning your property rights, take a first year property law class at Law School.
“There is an ancient common law principle that if people use part of your land as a path or road then you can’t close it off.”
Mostly applies to beach access.
A strange lineup for the vote...
What else is there in the case besides access?
Specifically, the landowners are stating they own the air above their land.
The case stems from hunters crossing the corner of private land and public land without setting foot on the private land.
A question of whether or not the land owners exceeded the legal deadline to file a challenge. Doesn’t seem like the Court ruled on the merits of the case, more akin to a procedural issue or a ruling on a technicality. Good on ‘em anyway.
Can you be a little more specific?
What I read is this involves an easement for a road over private land
And there are places where private land owners have accepted public funded road improvements on their property with the expectation that they would be kept open, then closed them. Some landowners do their best to lock people out of public lands, which they then treat as their own private preserve. Also, closing waterways. It is the abuses in both directions that need to be addressed. Wonder if court addressed this or made it more complicated? (And, no, I haven’t read the decision, which seems like an afterthought in the article more interested in who joined with who in make a decision.)
The 6-3 decision clears the way for two Montana landowners to resume their fight against the Forest Service after it supposedly changed the terms of access to a road that intersects their property. The majority ruled landowners Larry “Wil” Wilkins and Jane Stanton did not exceed the legal deadline for the challenge.
SCOTUS did not rule on the case, they ruled that the case could continue after a lower court said that they had met the legal deadline to file their case.
Yes, I noticed that too.
It may be that the Feds ability to authorize the General Public's access to a non public Federal road cuts both ways.
Here the private landowner may be an Elite favorite of the Left, but a lowly Serf private landowner within 500 miles of Spotted Owls or Lynx, would have the Feds and every General public Animal Rights Thug, Environmentalist, Lawyer and Media Shill all over their land 24/7.
I believe you are correct, however judicial bias can extend to incorrect rulings on timeliness.
Yes, that would be interesting, see my post #16.
IIRC, the Feds changed the usage by posting a sign instead of notifying the property owners the Feds were unilaterally changing a previous agreement. Feds claimed time limits precluded lawsuit.
I saw that opposition as well. Odd.
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.