Sign in to follow this  
frank james

Kelo v. City of New London,

Recommended Posts

In 2005 the homes and land of citizens was taken by the city of New London , ct.. This was done to provide land for a private developer,

with Pfizer corp. as the beneficiary. In the end Pfizer pulled out after taking huge tax breaks from New London.

This happened during a conservative administration. Call it corporate fascism, I do .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

In 2005 the homes and land of citizens was taken by the city of New London , ct.. This was done to provide land for a private developer,

with Pfizer corp. as the beneficiary. In the end Pfizer pulled out after taking huge tax breaks from New London.

This happened during a conservative administration. Call it corporate fascism, I do .

 

I'll go one further and call it a reason to recall the Supreme Court. Ruling against private property and for corporatism goes against the core of our.

Constitution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really turned my head around. I thought idea of our governments main purpose was to protect private property , and life.

This kind of perversion of the concept, for the common good , is one of the things that has gotten us into this mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2005 the homes and land of citizens was taken by the city of New London , ct.. This was done to provide land for a private developer,

with Pfizer corp. as the beneficiary. In the end Pfizer pulled out after taking huge tax breaks from New London.

This happened during a conservative administration. Call it corporate fascism, I do .

 

Yeah, corporate and government fascism by the LIBERAL members of the court - Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer

 

Dissenting - Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist and O'Connor, the conservatives you love to hate, except that they were the ones who stood up for individual private property rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

It really turned my head around. I thought idea of our governments main purpose was to protect private property , and life.

This kind of perversion of the concept, for the common good , is one of the things that has gotten us into this mess.

 

wow, just twelve people did this...

 

think of what could happen if our Congress and our Senate and then the President did it..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Jones taking the side of Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia - Priceless. :rolleyes:

 

And calling Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former litigator for the ACLU, a fascist - even better. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2005 the homes and land of citizens was taken by the city of New London , ct.. This was done to provide land for a private developer,

with Pfizer corp. as the beneficiary. In the end Pfizer pulled out after taking huge tax breaks from New London.

This happened during a conservative administration. Call it corporate fascism, I do .

 

Yeah, corporate and government fascism by the LIBERAL members of the court - Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer

 

Dissenting - Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist and O'Connor, the conservatives you love to hate, except that they were the ones who stood up for individual private property rights.

 

Besides the fact that the administration had no role in the issue, and President Bush denounced the ruling and issued an executive order for the Federal Government not to use the power that the courts granted it. Oh and the City Council of New London, which did the taking (the case is known as Kelo v. City of New London), was controlled by Democrats at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Jones taking the side of Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia - Priceless. :rolleyes:

 

And calling Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former litigator for the ACLU, a fascist - even better. B)

 

He should check out Gonzales v. Raich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Jones taking the side of Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia - Priceless. :rolleyes:

 

And calling Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former litigator for the ACLU, a fascist - even better. B)

Its a question of balance, and of course right and wrong. Many time the poor and disadvantaged are used as a smoke screen by the right.

Yet the corporations are god. I dig that cash is king , but dont get fooled by the misdirection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

.... , but dont get fooled by the misdirection.

 

like when you get fooled into voting for someone thinking that "things are gonna be different"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me preface my comments by chastising the party of the D, by noting that republiCUNTS rule. Now that I have satisfied the voices in the head of the demented by appropriately chastising democRATS, let me speak to the piece of steaming malarkey known as Kelo.

 

Kelo is the worst case I have ever seen decided by the Court. The individual has no chance. Citizens United suffers from the same problem. The company needs the land for something that will increase revenue for the government? No problem, take it from the individual. The company needs to purchase some representation? No problem, they can pay better than the individual.

 

So what is a pissed off individual to do, once the government gives their property away and sells their representative to the highest bidder? Well, we can take solace that the Court decided McDonald the way it did, and recognized the Second Amendment.

 

One out of three is better than nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... , but dont get fooled by the misdirection.

 

like when you get fooled into voting for someone thinking that "things are gonna be different"?

As opposed to McCain ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justice Thomas, dissenting:

 

The consequences of today's decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful. So-called "urban renewal" programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes. Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful. If ever there were justification for intrusive judicial review of constitutional provisions that protect "discrete and insular minorities," ... surely that principle would apply with great force to the powerless groups and individuals the Public Use Clause protects. The deferential standard this Court has adopted for the Public Use Clause is therefore deeply perverse. It encourages "those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development

firms" to victimize the weak. Ante, at 11 (O'Connor, J., dissenting).

 

Those incentives have made the legacy of this Court's "public purpose" test an unhappy one. In the 1950's, no doubt emboldened in part by the expansive understanding of "public use" this Court adopted in Berman, cities "rushed to draw plans" for downtown development. B. Frieden & L. Sagalayn, Downtown, Inc. How America Rebuilds Cities 17 (1989). "Of all the families displaced by urban renewal from 1949 through 1963, 63 percent of those whose race was known were nonwhite, and of these families, 56 percent of nonwhites and 38 percent of whites had incomes low enough to qualify for public housing, which, however, was seldom available to them." Id., at 28. Public works projects in the 1950's and 1960's destroyed predominantly minority communities in St. Paul, Minnesota, and Baltimore, Maryland. Id., at 28-29. In 1981, urban planners in Detroit, Michigan, uprooted the largely "lower-income and elderly" Poletown neighborhood for the benefit of the General Motors Corporation. J. Wylie, Poletown: Community Betrayed 58 (1989). Urban renewal projects have long been associated with the displacement of blacks; "n cities across the country, urban renewal came to be known as 'Negro removal.' " Pritchett, The "Public Menace" of Blight: Urban Renewal and the Private Uses of Eminent Domain, 21 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 1, 47 (2003). Over 97 percent of the individuals forcibly removed from their homes by the "slum-clearance" project upheld by this Court in Berman were black. 348 U. S., at 30. Regrettably, the predictable consequence of the Court's decision will be to exacerbate these effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justice Thomas, dissenting:

 

The consequences of today's decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful. U. S., at 30. Regrettably, the predictable consequence of the Court's decision will be to exacerbate these effects.

So, whatcha think about Murdock Village and the proposed property exchange?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justice Thomas, dissenting:

 

The consequences of today's decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful. U. S., at 30. Regrettably, the predictable consequence of the Court's decision will be to exacerbate these effects.

So, whatcha think about Murdock Village and the proposed property exchange?

 

Another "blighted area" with another Redevelopment Agency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kelo is the worst case I have ever seen decided by the Court.

 

It really can't be, because it's a simple derivative of the Berman case. The issues are the same. Similarly, Raich was bad, but is just a derivative of Wickard. Citizens United is a derivative of 1st National of Boston v Bellotti.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Jones taking the side of Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia - Priceless. :rolleyes:

 

And calling Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former litigator for the ACLU, a fascist - even better. B)

Its a question of balance, and of course right and wrong. Many time the poor and disadvantaged are used as a smoke screen by the right.

Yet the corporations are god. I dig that cash is king , but dont get fooled by the misdirection.

 

Misdirection? Like saying this?

 

In 2005 the homes and land of citizens was taken by the city of New London , ct.. This was done to provide land for a private developer,

with Pfizer corp. as the beneficiary. In the end Pfizer pulled out after taking huge tax breaks from New London.

This happened during a conservative administration. Call it corporate fascism, I do .

 

Are you so ignorant that you don't know that the Kelo vs New London case was decided by a liberal majority on the court, relying on a previous liberal precedent? That would be a believable excuse in your case. Otherwise it's misdirection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2005 the homes and land of citizens was taken by the city of New London , ct.. This was done to provide land for a private developer,

with Pfizer corp. as the beneficiary. In the end Pfizer pulled out after taking huge tax breaks from New London.

This happened during a conservative administration. Call it corporate fascism, I do .

 

 

It isn't corporate Fascism....it is Fascism.

 

BTW The conservatives in the UK are conservatives in name only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fixing Blight Tourism Revenue In Atlantic City


Charlie Birnbaum, piano tuner, homeowner, landlord, son of Holocaust survivors and famed eminent domain resister, had a message for Atlantic City about trying to take the family house, which overlooks a vast undeveloped area near the failed Revel casino.

"Do you need more of nothing?" he said after final arguments were presented Tuesday to Superior Court Judge Julio Mendez in his dispute with the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA). "I think they have plenty of nothing already."

Nobody could argue that point.

 

...

 

Lederman said the CRDA's broad goal of a mixed-use development connected with a larger lighthouse-area redevelopment was sufficient justification. The Revel casino, which envisioned a developed neighborhood around it, went bankrupt, shut down, and was sold during the course of the action against Birnbaum.

In any case, Lederman said, "the Revel is irrelevant to this proceeding." The goal is "to promote non-casino revenue."

"Atlantic City has suffered and continues to suffer," he said. "The CRDA did not make this decision alone. It was done by the Legislature."

Robert McNamara, senior attorney with the Arlington, Va.-based Institute for Justice, which has taken on Birnbaum's cause, said that the project was "originally driven by private consultants to the Revel casino."

The current stated purpose - encouraging development in the tourism district - would fall under "economic development" - a purpose for which New Jersey requires a declaration of blight.

"This is a blue-sky taking to build something at some point," McNamara said, adding that courts across the country have rejected similarly vague plans as justification.

 

The CRDA, which offered Birnbaum $240,000, did not attempt to declare Birnbaum's house or the surrounding neighborhood blighted. It contends that the tourism-district legislation supplies sufficient public purpose - akin to building a road, a library, or a school - to allow eminent domain.

"Do you need the Birnbaums' home for what you need to do there?" Mendez asked Lederman.

Lederman said proving "necessity" to the judge would only be required if there was a showing of bad faith or abuse of discretion.

Mendez countered that Birnbaum contends the CRDA has, in effect, "cherry picked" his property for seizing, while leaving vacant lots across the street - some of which are for sale - alone.

Lederman said the CRDA had determined Birnbaum's house was part of its future plans. It said it left out some low- and moderate-income housing, as that would be consistent with future development of the neighborhood.

McNamara said that in this case it was necessary for the CRDA to be specific about what would replace Birnbaum's house, as that would determine if it was for a broad definition of economic development, or for a specific public purpose, like a park. That would then determine the right of the CRDA to take the property.

Mendez, who has been hearing arguments on this case since May, said he would issue a ruling in the next several days.

The CRDA recently approved a $30 million loan for Boraie Development L.L.C. to partner with Shaquille O'Neal to build a mid-rise apartment building and mixed-use development nearby.

"This isn't an isolated project," Lederman said. "The promotion of tourism is a valid public purpose."

Birnbaum said he does not want to stand in the way of a legitimate purpose, but is still waiting to hear one.

 

So they need to seize his house now to do something, someday, with casino owners or maybe Shaq.

 

And this fellow is disrupting that public purpose by preventing the transfer of his home to the obviously-needy Shaq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not been to a movie in years, but want to see Little Pink House.

 

I know, it sounds like a gay thing, NTTAWWT, but it's really about a chick.

 

Before you get too excited, this thread might need...

 

 

... Pictures!

539w.jpg

 

 

OK, so it's not a hot chick, but it's a STRONG one. Way better.

The subtitle to the book, A True Story of Defiance and Courage, couldn't describe her better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This case is a perfect example of why Justices besides Clarence Thomas should practice an original general meaning approach to the Constitutionality of laws, rather than deferring to stacked precedences that deviate so far from what is right.

 

So, in deciding cases, Thomas turns to founding-era documents not only to identify the original intention of the framers, the original understanding of the ratifiers, or the original public meaning of the Constitution’s words and phrases but then to find agreement among these “multiple sources of evidence” and thereby to ascertain the “general meaning shown in common by all relevant sources.

 

 

Brilliant man. The Constitution is the ultimate precedent.

 

http://www.libertylawsite.org/liberty-forum/understanding-clarence-thomas-the-jurisprudence-of-constitutional-restoration/

 

Thanks for the reminder, Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His originalist approach yields some interesting results.

 

What do the words "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" mean?

 

Thomas said

 

The most natural reading of the Clause is that it allows the government to take property only if the government owns, or the public has a legal right to use, the property, as opposed to taking it for any public purpose or necessity whatsoever.

 

 

He's outta control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy birthday to you,

Happy birthday to you,

Happy birthday, dear Kelo,

Happy birthday to you.

 

Ten years old. They grow up so fast.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/22/my-wall-street-journal-op-ed-on-the-10th-anniversary-of-kelo-v-city-of-new-london/

 

Making bad decisions on perhaps otherwise good precedent can surely suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy birthday to you,

Happy birthday to you,

Happy birthday, dear Kelo,

Happy birthday to you.

 

Ten years old. They grow up so fast.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/22/my-wall-street-journal-op-ed-on-the-10th-anniversary-of-kelo-v-city-of-new-london/

 

Making bad decisions on perhaps otherwise good precedent can surely suck.

 

Although Kelo was a painful defeat for advocates of property rights, it led to important progress. The ruling generated an enormous backlash…

 

 

Enormous. You can still just feel the echoes of that backlash in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

House Judiciary Committee Revisits Kelo, Decides State of Property Rights Not Good

The Institute for Justice represented Susette Kelo when her house was condemned by the city in 2000. This week, Dan Alban, an attorney for the Institute for Justice, was the first witness at a House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice hearing to investigate the state of property rights in America ten years after the decision that devastated the Fifth Amendment.

Alban testified that if the government is given the power to transfer property from one private party to another, property will be transferred to those who are wealthy and well connected. He explained that while 44 states reformed their eminent domain laws in the wake of Kelo, the reforms were not extensive enough and abuse of eminent domain actually tripled.

While Kelo’s property was originally taken with the purpose of positively affecting the community, the development project was abandoned and the land where her home once stood is now a vacant lot.

Alban wants to make sure federal funds are not used to support forced transfers of property.

“There is still a strong need for Congress to take action,” Alban explained, pointing to the fact that some states, like New York, have taken no action at all to protect the property rights of individuals.

Chairman Franks (R-AZ) said that personal property rights are at the foundation of our society and we have a duty to protect them “in the face of increasing regulations.” This sentiment was echoed around most of the room. Representative Goodlatte (R-VA) said that the Kelo decision served to “trample on Americans’ property rights” and “no one should live in fear of the government snatching up” their property. Goodlatte went on to cite that only 10% of those whose property is seized receive compensation.

Representatives Conyers (D-MI) and Cohen (D-TN) were the voice of opposition in the room, ironically enough taking a stance in favor of states’ rights. Conyers contested any action by congress, saying that he wishes to “respect principles of federalism” and believes “federal intervention is unnecessary and inappropriate at this time.”

Cohen came off as bombastic, incoherent, and disrespectful, yelling at the witnesses and repeatedly asking if the Koch brothers were funding their organizations, implying that the witnesses were swayed by money as opposed to defending liberty on their own belief systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enormous. You can still just feel the echoes of that backlash in this thread.

 

 

Nah - mostly just the flopping of dead fish.

 

Anyone who still thinks the problem with big massive companies buying big massive government lies with only one side is a fucking idiot. The donkeytards think its only the big evil companies and we need to be regulated to death; the libertardians/republicunts think its only the big evil government and stroking a rifle will save us all.

 

More fucked than we were then, not less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Institute for Justice Wins Another One

 

Today, Judge Julio Mendez of the New Jersey Superior Court ruled that the state’s Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) is not allowed to condemn the longtime family home of local piano-tuner Charlie Birnbaum unless it comes forward with more evidence justifying the taking. The order gives CRDA 180 days to “reevaluate the feasibility of the proposed project” and provide the court with more evidence to justify the taking.

 

Today’s decision is the latest development in a case, Casino Reinvestment Development Authority v. Birnbaum, that has drawn national attention. The battle pits Birnbaum, a longtime Atlantic City fixture who has tuned pianos for acts like Frank Sinatra since 1980, against a state agency that is trying to use eminent domain to seize his longtime family home, which Charlie inherited from his parents, both Holocaust survivors.

 

 

I think this judge took notice of the vacant land where Kelo's home used to be and decided not to enable a repeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Donald on Kelo vs New London

 

In 2005, however, Trump was delighted to find that the Supreme Court had okayed the brand of government-abetted theft that he’d twice attempted. “I happen to agree with it 100 percent,” he told Fox News’s Neil Cavuto of the Kelo decision.

 


Amazing that the poster boy for crony capitalism is somehow seen as a person who won't use government to screw people.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald Trump elaborates on how pesky property rights get in the way of economic development

 

I think eminent domain is wonderful, if you're building a highway, and you need to build, as an example, a highway, and you're going to be blocked by a holdout, or, in some cases, it's a holdout—just so you understand, nobody knows this better than I do, because I built a lot of buildings in Manhattan, and you'll have 12 sites and you'll get 11 and you'll have the one holdout and you end up building around them and everything else, okay? So, I know it better than anybody. I think eminent domain for massive projects, for instance, you're going to create thousands of jobs, and you have somebody that's in the way, and you pay that person far more—don't forget, eminent domain, they get a lot of money, and you need a house in a certain location, because you're going to build this massive development that's going to employ thousands of people, or you're going to build a factory, that without this little house, you can't build the factory—I think eminent domain is fine.

 

 

Seems to me the "you didn't build that" critique could not be more accurate in cases like he describes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government takes family's land near Area 51

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/government-takes-familys-land-near-area-51

 

Private land overlooking the secret base at Area 51 has officially been taken from the owners and transferred to the United States Air Force.

Last month, the U.S. Air Force condemned the Groom Mine property when the family who owns it rejected a government buyout they felt was unjust.

The I-Team broke the story of the family's fight with the government.

The Sheahan family, which until now owned the mine, knew they faced an uphill fight. They also expected the government would probably take the land through eminent domain even though the Sheahan's owned it since Abe Lincoln was in the White House.

Now -- literally with the stroke of a pen -- a federal judge has turned the land over to the U.S. Air Force. The only part of the fight left for the Sheahan family now is compensation and what will happen to the equipment, buildings, even human remains, still at the site.

In the remote central Nevada desert, the Groom mine has been an island of private property surrounded by a vast government buffer zone. The buffer zone is patrolled by security troops to prevent people from getting a look at the secret test base at Groom Lake -- better known as Area 51.

The family who owns the mine overlooking Area 51 has been at odds with the air force, which condemned the property last month, after the family declined a $5.2 million buyout.

"I have a geologist friend who I took out there, who's just a buff, and he said it is literally almost priceless," said Barbara Sheahan, Groom Mine heir. "There is so much there, not only the ore which is in the ground that can be mined, but in all the intrinsic value of what's on the land."

What's on the land includes buildings, mining equipment and the remains of kin who worked the mine since the family acquired it in the 1870s.

There's also the question of indignities suffered by the family from nearby government testing including buildings strafed by military planes and radiation drifting downwind from above ground nuclear shots in 50s and 60s.

"This has been like I said a 60-plus year nothing short of criminal activity on the part of the federal government, the AEC, Black Ops, CIA and you can go on and on," said Joe Sheahan, Groom Mine heir.

On Sept. 16, federal Judge Miranda Du signed the order in the condemnation case giving possession of the Groom Mine property to the United States government. The Sheahan's have asked for a jury trial, but the issues will be limited to how much the air force must pay for the land and the disposition of the equipment and personal property left on the site.

"There's nothing fair, there's nothing anything remotely close to that involved in this process," said Joe Sheahan.

"But there never has been either, so it's nothing new. But we would like to change it at least to get our stuff out and be paid the value," Barbara Sheahan said.

 

The air force made its final, $5 million offer to the Sheahan family after concluding that the security and safety of defense testing in that area made private land ownership impossible.

It the condemnation case, the air force values the land at only $1.5 million.

The Sheahan's say it's worth much more than that considering the value of the minerals in the mine, the abuses the family has suffered over decades and the land' s historical significance.

 

 

Hmm... so the government offered $5 million and now says that just compensation is $1.5 million.

 

So the offer was way too high or the compensation being offered is not just.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Mr. Jones taking the side of Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia - Priceless. :rolleyes:

 

And calling Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former litigator for the ACLU, a fascist - even better. cool.gif

Its a question of balance, and of course right and wrong. Many time the poor and disadvantaged are used as a smoke screen by the right.

Yet the corporations are god. I dig that cash is king , but dont get fooled by the misdirection.

 

 

Lucky the citizens of the US have their precious Freedom to save them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Government takes family's land near Area 51

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/government-takes-familys-land-near-area-51

 

Private land overlooking the secret base at Area 51 has officially been taken from the owners and transferred to the United States Air Force.

Last month, the U.S. Air Force condemned the Groom Mine property when the family who owns it rejected a government buyout they felt was unjust.

The I-Team broke the story of the family's fight with the government.

The Sheahan family, which until now owned the mine, knew they faced an uphill fight. They also expected the government would probably take the land through eminent domain even though the Sheahan's owned it since Abe Lincoln was in the White House.

Now -- literally with the stroke of a pen -- a federal judge has turned the land over to the U.S. Air Force. The only part of the fight left for the Sheahan family now is compensation and what will happen to the equipment, buildings, even human remains, still at the site.

In the remote central Nevada desert, the Groom mine has been an island of private property surrounded by a vast government buffer zone. The buffer zone is patrolled by security troops to prevent people from getting a look at the secret test base at Groom Lake -- better known as Area 51.

The family who owns the mine overlooking Area 51 has been at odds with the air force, which condemned the property last month, after the family declined a $5.2 million buyout.

"I have a geologist friend who I took out there, who's just a buff, and he said it is literally almost priceless," said Barbara Sheahan, Groom Mine heir. "There is so much there, not only the ore which is in the ground that can be mined, but in all the intrinsic value of what's on the land."

What's on the land includes buildings, mining equipment and the remains of kin who worked the mine since the family acquired it in the 1870s.

There's also the question of indignities suffered by the family from nearby government testing including buildings strafed by military planes and radiation drifting downwind from above ground nuclear shots in 50s and 60s.

"This has been like I said a 60-plus year nothing short of criminal activity on the part of the federal government, the AEC, Black Ops, CIA and you can go on and on," said Joe Sheahan, Groom Mine heir.

On Sept. 16, federal Judge Miranda Du signed the order in the condemnation case giving possession of the Groom Mine property to the United States government. The Sheahan's have asked for a jury trial, but the issues will be limited to how much the air force must pay for the land and the disposition of the equipment and personal property left on the site.

"There's nothing fair, there's nothing anything remotely close to that involved in this process," said Joe Sheahan.

"But there never has been either, so it's nothing new. But we would like to change it at least to get our stuff out and be paid the value," Barbara Sheahan said.

 

The air force made its final, $5 million offer to the Sheahan family after concluding that the security and safety of defense testing in that area made private land ownership impossible.

It the condemnation case, the air force values the land at only $1.5 million.

The Sheahan's say it's worth much more than that considering the value of the minerals in the mine, the abuses the family has suffered over decades and the land' s historical significance.

 

 

Hmm... so the government offered $5 million and now says that just compensation is $1.5 million.

 

So the offer was way too high or the compensation being offered is not just.

 

 

i guess you should take the first offer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Government takes family's land near Area 51

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/government-takes-familys-land-near-area-51

 

Private land overlooking the secret base at Area 51 has officially been taken from the owners and transferred to the United States Air Force.

Last month, the U.S. Air Force condemned the Groom Mine property when the family who owns it rejected a government buyout they felt was unjust.

The I-Team broke the story of the family's fight with the government.

The Sheahan family, which until now owned the mine, knew they faced an uphill fight. They also expected the government would probably take the land through eminent domain even though the Sheahan's owned it since Abe Lincoln was in the White House.

Now -- literally with the stroke of a pen -- a federal judge has turned the land over to the U.S. Air Force. The only part of the fight left for the Sheahan family now is compensation and what will happen to the equipment, buildings, even human remains, still at the site.

In the remote central Nevada desert, the Groom mine has been an island of private property surrounded by a vast government buffer zone. The buffer zone is patrolled by security troops to prevent people from getting a look at the secret test base at Groom Lake -- better known as Area 51.

The family who owns the mine overlooking Area 51 has been at odds with the air force, which condemned the property last month, after the family declined a $5.2 million buyout.

"I have a geologist friend who I took out there, who's just a buff, and he said it is literally almost priceless," said Barbara Sheahan, Groom Mine heir. "There is so much there, not only the ore which is in the ground that can be mined, but in all the intrinsic value of what's on the land."

What's on the land includes buildings, mining equipment and the remains of kin who worked the mine since the family acquired it in the 1870s.

There's also the question of indignities suffered by the family from nearby government testing including buildings strafed by military planes and radiation drifting downwind from above ground nuclear shots in 50s and 60s.

"This has been like I said a 60-plus year nothing short of criminal activity on the part of the federal government, the AEC, Black Ops, CIA and you can go on and on," said Joe Sheahan, Groom Mine heir.

On Sept. 16, federal Judge Miranda Du signed the order in the condemnation case giving possession of the Groom Mine property to the United States government. The Sheahan's have asked for a jury trial, but the issues will be limited to how much the air force must pay for the land and the disposition of the equipment and personal property left on the site.

"There's nothing fair, there's nothing anything remotely close to that involved in this process," said Joe Sheahan.

"But there never has been either, so it's nothing new. But we would like to change it at least to get our stuff out and be paid the value," Barbara Sheahan said.

 

The air force made its final, $5 million offer to the Sheahan family after concluding that the security and safety of defense testing in that area made private land ownership impossible.

It the condemnation case, the air force values the land at only $1.5 million.

The Sheahan's say it's worth much more than that considering the value of the minerals in the mine, the abuses the family has suffered over decades and the land' s historical significance.

 

 

Hmm... so the government offered $5 million and now says that just compensation is $1.5 million.

 

So the offer was way too high or the compensation being offered is not just.

 

 

i guess you should take the first offer

 

 

Probably so, and just accept the fact that W was right. It's "just a goddamn piece of paper." So what if it has gobblydegook in there about not taking private property for pubic use without just compensation? Stupid bill of rights. random is right to deride our precious "freedom."

 

I would not have guessed you for a W fan, Raz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like it went through due process. Air Force was willing to pay $5m for a piece of dirt and worn out/shot up buildings. Owners got greedy and thought they could get more. Pigs get slaughtered, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like it went through due process. Air Force was willing to pay $5m for a piece of dirt and worn out/shot up buildings. Owners got greedy and thought they could get more. Pigs get slaughtered, right?

 

You're assuming the initial offer was fair (which means you are assuming that the current offer is not) but my experience is that this may not be true.

 

When the government wanted to acquire Kendall Gliderport from my former boss to add it to the Everglades National Park, their interest in the property immediately made it far less valuable. Who wants to buy something that is about to be taken? So they offered her the market value AFTER their interest was announced, which was far different from the market value before.

 

That did not seem like just compensation to her and she was offended when a govt official proudly announced they had done it to "save tax money" on the deal. Her reaction: saving the taxpayers by screwing an old couple out of their retirement plan is unjust. She sued. Last I heard, the government was fighting it mostly by waiting for her and her husband to die.

 

This case might well be the same. Whatever they're mining might make the property worth far more than $5 million. They apparently thought it was worth more or they would not have refused the offer.

 

Don't assume that only individuals can be greedy and try to take unfair advantage of a situation. It's possible that government employees can act that way too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge decided. They can work the appeal process. Nothing to see here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge decided. They can work the appeal process. Nothing to see here.

 

Judges are not always right, hence the appeals process.

 

We frequently comment on when judges get things wrong here at PA. I guess that's something to see sometimes?

 

Since you believe that the judge was right that $1.5 million is just compensation, do you think there should be some punishment for the people who offered $3.5 million more than the just value for the place? Wasting millions of tax dollars would have been a bad thing IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nope. Offering a sweetener to avoid lawsuits is a sound practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering how good googlebot's ad targeting is.

 

Does anyone else get this one or do they know I'm the only person here who is interested?

 

eminent-domain-ad.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're not blocking them (using AdBlock or similar), then the advertising companies are tracking where you go online through 'cookies'. Basically, these are small packets of information that a website can have the browser store and send back when connecting to their server (i.e. the advertising company's machines). They were originally intended for storing things like session details (so you don't log in to every page on a forum for instance), but marketing & data gathering companies found them very useful for data-mining.

 

Basically, if you don't block or clear your cookies frequently, you are sending to the advertising companies a unique identifier on every page you visit they are also advertising on. Read an article on WSJ they have ads on, they know the person using that browser read an article on (say) eminent domain. Then visit a forum on a (say) guns, then they know you read eminent domain articles and are interested in firearms. A couple of visits to Fox News, militia forums, and/or Glen Beck's page and they've nailed that unique identifier to a "Tea Party" profile and they start sending you gold bullion advertising.

 

There is a reason that the EU made it compulsory for pages hosted in their jurisdiction ask the user about cookies. The US (& Australia for that matter) is slightly less protective of people's privacy when it comes to corporate data mining, so we're still required to turn on protections ourselves on the assumption that we're being spied upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're not blocking them (using AdBlock or similar), then the advertising companies are tracking where you go online through 'cookies'. Basically, these are small packets of information that a website can have the browser store and send back when connecting to their server (i.e. the advertising company's machines). They were originally intended for storing things like session details (so you don't log in to every page on a forum for instance), but marketing & data gathering companies found them very useful for data-mining.

 

Basically, if you don't block or clear your cookies frequently, you are sending to the advertising companies a unique identifier on every page you visit they are also advertising on. Read an article on WSJ they have ads on, they know the person using that browser read an article on (say) eminent domain. Then visit a forum on a (say) guns, then they know you read eminent domain articles and are interested in firearms. A couple of visits to Fox News, militia forums, and/or Glen Beck's page and they've nailed that unique identifier to a "Tea Party" profile and they start sending you gold bullion advertising.

 

There is a reason that the EU made it compulsory for pages hosted in their jurisdiction ask the user about cookies. The US (& Australia for that matter) is slightly less protective of people's privacy when it comes to corporate data mining, so we're still required to turn on protections ourselves on the assumption that we're being spied upon.

 

I know how cookies work. I was just wondering if anyone else got that same ad.

 

This thread must have the bots mightily confused about me, since I have posted links from reclaimdemocracy.org, philly.com, and washingtonpost. com. None from Fox or Glenn Beck, as usual.

 

Since you're here in this nice thread, do you have thoughts on the constitutional issues in the topic case? I heard you were interested in such things.

 

Did the majority get it right in your view or do you agree more with a dissent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know how cookies work. I was just wondering if anyone else got that same ad.

I haven't seen it. Very unlikely to honestly, my web history really doesn't lend itself to the impression such advertising would work on me.

 

This thread must have the bots mightily confused about me, since I have posted links from reclaimdemocracy.org, philly.com, and washingtonpost. com. None from Fox or Glenn Beck, as usual.

That's great. It was an example, not an accusation or assertion you were a Tea Party profile.

 

Since you're here in this nice thread, do you have thoughts on the constitutional issues in the topic case? I heard you were interested in such things.

 

Did the majority get it right in your view or do you agree more with a dissent?

I do indeed have some thoughts on the matter but you're not one I'd choose to discuss them with in general. It's not worth wading through the piles of diversion, pedantry, and outright bullshit you post to get to the one or two nuggets of interesting opinion/information you might have to offer. I responded to the question you had on the advertising as I thought you'd be able to discuss that without the usual detour into tedious territory. Nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I know how cookies work. I was just wondering if anyone else got that same ad.

I haven't seen it. Very unlikely to honestly, my web history really doesn't lend itself to the impression such advertising would work on me.

 

This thread must have the bots mightily confused about me, since I have posted links from reclaimdemocracy.org, philly.com, and washingtonpost. com. None from Fox or Glenn Beck, as usual.

That's great. It was an example, not an accusation or assertion you were a Tea Party profile.

 

Since you're here in this nice thread, do you have thoughts on the constitutional issues in the topic case? I heard you were interested in such things.

 

Did the majority get it right in your view or do you agree more with a dissent?

I do indeed have some thoughts on the matter but you're not one I'd choose to discuss them with in general. It's not worth wading through the piles of diversion, pedantry, and outright bullshit you post to get to the one or two nuggets of interesting opinion/information you might have to offer. I responded to the question you had on the advertising as I thought you'd be able to discuss that without the usual detour into tedious territory. Nothing more.

 

 

I got a home furnishing company today. Man are they barking up the wrong tree!

 

So what ads do you get?

 

It's possible, though unlikely, that someone besides me will visit this thread someday. It only seems private, but is not. You could share your thoughts on the topic case just in case someone worthy of your great intellect comes along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what ads do you get?

s1lphx.png

 

It's possible, though unlikely, that someone besides me will visit this thread someday. It only seems private, but is not. You could share your thoughts on the topic case just in case someone worthy of your great intellect comes along.

Has nothing to do with intellect. I acknowledge you are a smart guy. You just happen to be dishonest / disingenuous in your discussions about political subjects and I have no interest in engaging you when you're like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can point to a dishonest post in this thread I'll correct it.

 

Do you agree with Trump that the liberal majority decided this one correctly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can point to a dishonest post in this thread I'll correct it.

If I believed you'd correct a post that was dishonest/disingenuous just by having it pointed out, I wouldn't think you are dishonest/disingenuous. I don't believe that so won't indulge you by taking the bait.

 

Do you agree with Trump that the liberal majority decided this one correctly?

See earlier post. I am not interested in discussing the subject with you. Find another patsy to play your games with. There are plenty of others around for you to troll and you've stated in the past that, being an Aussie, my opinion on such legal matters is not that important to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can point to a dishonest post in this thread I'll correct it.

 

Do you agree with Trump that the liberal majority decided this one correctly?

Let's consider the Hillary being a cunt thread: http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=171198&page=2#entry5205069

 

From this post I have linked and further down the page you repeatedly claim that the manual contains a warning

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=171198&page=2#entry5205849

 

Multiple times on the page you also claim that the father was not charged with a crime, when of course he went to trial but was let off.

 

Sorry dude, you either are a hopeless liar, or you are simply incompetent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you can point to a dishonest post in this thread I'll correct it.

 

Do you agree with Trump that the liberal majority decided this one correctly?

Let's consider the Hillary being a cunt thread: http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=171198&page=2#entry5205069

 

From this post I have linked and further down the page you repeatedly claim that the manual contains a warning

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=171198&page=2#entry5205849

 

Multiple times on the page you also claim that the father was not charged with a crime, when of course he went to trial but was let off.

 

Sorry dude, you either are a hopeless liar, or you are simply incompetent.

 

 

Astonishing that those traits don't show up in this thread.

 

Did you guys get lost on your way to Tom Ray Anarchy or something? My status as Worst Messenger Ever has its own thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you guys get lost on your way to Tom Ray Anarchy or something? My status as Worst Messenger Ever has its own thread.

 

Good for you. I'm not interested in engaging you in that thread either. Which is why I haven't bothered even looking at it before now. Having seen what it's about and the level of wankery from all sides (yours included), I'm still not interested.

 

You asked me questions in this thread and so I responded to them in this thread . If you don't want the answers here, don't ask the questions here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You responded to the ones unrelated to this thread.

 

I know that the only fit subjects for discussion are what a bad messenger I am and ad targeting because apparently I'm better behaved when those are discussed but I still want to see an answer to this one:

 

Do you agree with Trump that the liberal majority decided this one correctly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You responded to the ones unrelated to this thread.

That you posed in this thread. If you didn't want those questions answered here, it is up to you not to ask them here. Not my responsibility to sort your shit out.

 

I know that the only fit subjects for discussion are what a bad messenger I am and ad targeting because apparently I'm better behaved when those are discussed but I still want to see an answer to this one:

 

Do you agree with Trump that the liberal majority decided this one correctly?

What one wants and what one gets are very often very different things. Adults understand that. Perhaps if you hadn't proven yourself a tool so many times in the past, you'd be getting more of what you want now. I personally would be more amenable to discussing the subject with you had I not seen how you've acted in the past when I've done that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

<SNIP>

a legal realist would suggest that they all do that, depending on the facts of any given case.

 

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3643&context=fss_papers

 

The second page gives a pretty good description of the concept. I'm a believer.

 

 

Interesting read - thanks for sharing that. Not sure I've accurately digested all of it, but, it does present some food for thought.

 

The basic premise is that judges do whatever the hell they damn well please on any given case, and the law/precedent doesn't necessarily factor into their decision. ..

 

 

So in the topic case, the liberal justices just wanted to give Pfizer that lady's home and the conservatives just wanted her to keep it? Is that how this works?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CA Assembly Bill 2492 the "Donald Trump 'Wonderful' Land Grab Bill."

 

...

That's a reference to Trump's interview with Fox News last October, in which he said, "I think eminent domain is wonderful—if you're building a highway and you need to build, as an example, a highway and you're going to be blocked by a holdout... and you need a house in a certain location because you're going to build this massive development that's going to employ thousands of people."

 

Yes, the Constitution allows eminent domain for some limited and genuinely public uses, such as building a highway. But the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision in 2005 deemed it acceptable for government to take property not just for public "use," but for public "benefit," which is a disturbingly open-ended concept.

 

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," wrote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her dissent. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process... As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more."

 

Trump now has other things on his mind than seizing the property of little people who stand in the way of his developments. But the Democratic Legislature ought to think twice before passing something that empowers people like him.

 

 

Ought to, but won't. It's darn difficult to get a Democrat to admit that the conservative minority actually got this case right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Casino Looting Authority lost in court


The case of Casino Reinvestment Development Authority v. Birnbaum first reared its head in 2012 after Atlantic City officials announced the existence of something called the "South Inlet Mixed Use Development Project." According to state officials, this project would "complement the new Revel Casino and assist with the demands created by the resort." The state never got around to detailing the "project" in any specifics, however, and the Revel Casino shortly went bankrupt. But that didn't stop the CRDA from trying to seize the family home of a man named Charlie Birnbaum. But Birnbaum fought back, retaining the services of the lawyers at the Institute for Justice, a national public interest law firm that specializes in defending property owners like Birnbaum from this sort of government bedevilment. On Friday Birnbaum and his legal team prevailed in court.


Even if it doesn't go bankrupt, a casino isn't a public use. Generating more tax money by stealing Mr. Birnbaum's home isn't a public use.

 

At most, it's a public purpose. Justice Thomas was right that we should not confuse the two. When we do, cases like this one (and the topic one) are the result.

 

Here's an idea: if you want to buy a house to build your casino, buy it!

 

It's a given that Hillary disagrees with that idea and agrees with the liberal majority in Kelo v New London that looting is a public benefit.

 

This makes her no diffferent from The Donald on this issue.

 

The court's ruling is a welcome victory over government malfeasance. It's also a welcome rebuke to a state agency with a long, ugly record. After all, this is the same Casino Reinvestment Development Authority that notoriously joined forces with Donald Trump back in 1994 in an effort to kick an elderly widow out of her home in order to help Trump build a new limousine parking lot for the Trump Plaza hotel and casino. Happily, the CRDA's pro-Trump scheme was also struck down in court.

 

 

At least there will be one choice on the ballot for those of us who think "public use" means "public use."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a given that Hillary disagrees with that idea and agrees with the liberal majority in Kelo v New London that looting is a public benefit.

 

Why is it a given?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's a given that Hillary disagrees with that idea and agrees with the liberal majority in Kelo v New London that looting is a public benefit.

 

Why is it a given?

 

 

Several reasons:

 

The entire left wing of the court bought into the idea that public use = public purpose = the promise of more tax revenue.

 

She has said that eminent domain takings are OK if "the projects will benefit the community." The promise of community benefits in the form of higher tax revenues was the basis for the left's decision in Kelo v New London.

 

She's quite capable of saying so when she disagrees with a Supreme Court decision and has had over a decade in which to do so, but hasn't.

 

She's clearly the representative of the Democrat establishment that worked on her behalf in the primaries. The same people who wrote the platform. The same platform that could not even advocate reining in eminent domain when it comes to evil fossil fuel companies.

 

Are there any reasons to believe she opposes the Kelo v New London result? I can't find any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, there's some good news on the fifth amendment front

 

Forcing a property owner to post a bond before she could challenge a civil forfeiture proceeding in court violated her constitutional right to due process, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday.

 

 

She couldn't afford the bond and the court said that making the exercise of a protected right unaffordable violates the rights of poor people. You hear the same argument when it comes to making people spend money to vote. You hear it from different people when it comes to making gun purchases unaffordable.

 

I hope that one makes its way to the Supremes and the property rights advocates prevail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It's a given that Hillary disagrees with that idea and agrees with the liberal majority in Kelo v New London that looting is a public benefit.

 

Why is it a given?

 

 

Several reasons:

 

The entire left wing of the court bought into the idea that public use = public purpose = the promise of more tax revenue.

 

She has said that eminent domain takings are OK if "the projects will benefit the community." The promise of community benefits in the form of higher tax revenues was the basis for the left's decision in Kelo v New London.

 

She's quite capable of saying so when she disagrees with a Supreme Court decision and has had over a decade in which to do so, but hasn't.

 

She's clearly the representative of the Democrat establishment that worked on her behalf in the primaries. The same people who wrote the platform. The same platform that could not even advocate reining in eminent domain when it comes to evil fossil fuel companies.

 

Are there any reasons to believe she opposes the Kelo v New London result? I can't find any.

 

So, because someone hasn't commented negatively about something that means they must agree with it. Got it.

 

Don't know why I bothered asking. You can't be honest about the position of people with whom you're actually talking to. Why would you bother for people not present?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The city of New London was wrong. They've been digging in their heels and fighting the bad fight for years, and they're still wrong.

Nobody I know who lives/ed in New London supported this decision. Even Pfizer execs I know thought it was a bad decision.

New London, and that area of New England in general, are hurting worse than most of the rest of southern New England/Metro Bos-Wash corridor. Rampant hard core drugs, prostitution. low wage/ low opportunity jobs, and the only industry was fishing, ship building, or...... Drugs or prostitution.... Now the ship building is down, the fishing is almost done, and the drugs are the best deal in town. Sell your acre to the developer who thinks the cruise ships are coming in to see the Indian casinos, or the city will evict you..... But the cruise ships aren't coming in. The weather sucks, the accommodations suck, and there's nothing else to see unless you drive 3 hours north in mid October to look at leaves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

It's a given that Hillary disagrees with that idea and agrees with the liberal majority in Kelo v New London that looting is a public benefit.

 

Why is it a given?

 

 

Several reasons:

 

The entire left wing of the court bought into the idea that public use = public purpose = the promise of more tax revenue.

 

She has said that eminent domain takings are OK if "the projects will benefit the community." The promise of community benefits in the form of higher tax revenues was the basis for the left's decision in Kelo v New London.

 

She's quite capable of saying so when she disagrees with a Supreme Court decision and has had over a decade in which to do so, but hasn't.

 

She's clearly the representative of the Democrat establishment that worked on her behalf in the primaries. The same people who wrote the platform. The same platform that could not even advocate reining in eminent domain when it comes to evil fossil fuel companies.

 

Are there any reasons to believe she opposes the Kelo v New London result? I can't find any.

 

So, because someone hasn't commented negatively about something that means they must agree with it. Got it.

 

...

 

 

 

If there are other good reasons (like the ones I gave) to believe she supports the decision, then yes, those things combined with a lack of commentary and a lack of any contrary evidence do lead me to believe that she's a creature of the left wing establishment and would continue to be if elected.

 

I don't know why I bother asking, but what do you think about Kelo vs New London? Did the liberal justices get it right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The city of New London was wrong. They've been digging in their heels and fighting the bad fight for years, and they're still wrong.

Nobody I know who lives/ed in New London supported this decision. Even Pfizer execs I know thought it was a bad decision.

New London, and that area of New England in general, are hurting worse than most of the rest of southern New England/Metro Bos-Wash corridor. Rampant hard core drugs, prostitution. low wage/ low opportunity jobs, and the only industry was fishing, ship building, or...... Drugs or prostitution.... Now the ship building is down, the fishing is almost done, and the drugs are the best deal in town. Sell your acre to the developer who thinks the cruise ships are coming in to see the Indian casinos, or the city will evict you..... But the cruise ships aren't coming in. The weather sucks, the accommodations suck, and there's nothing else to see unless you drive 3 hours north in mid October to look at leaves.

 

The City of New London didn't render the decision that is the topic of this thread.

 

Do you think Justice Stevens got this one right?

 

I think Justice Thomas did.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there are other good reasons (like the ones I gave) to believe she supports the decision, then yes, those things combined with a lack of commentary and a lack of any contrary evidence do lead me to believe that she's a creature of the left wing establishment and would continue to be if elected.

That you will believe Hillary supports the decision is "a given". That Hillary actually believes it is not "a given".

 

I didn't ask about your thoughts. I asked about why it was supposedly "a given" Hillary has the position you have projected upon her. Your reasons are not good enough to justify that position.

 

I don't know why I bother asking, but what do you think about Kelo vs New London? Did the liberal justices get it right?

 

I don't know why you bother asking either - you're not interested in the answer. My opinion on the matter won't change yours, won't change the decision, and has zero impact on anything you have to say about it. However, evidence shows that providing you with anything you can selectively edit, misrepresent, and/or take out of context does result in you doing exactly that years after answering your questions. I think I'll pass on that thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The city of New London was wrong. They've been digging in their heels and fighting the bad fight for years, and they're still wrong.

Nobody I know who lives/ed in New London supported this decision. Even Pfizer execs I know thought it was a bad decision.

New London, and that area of New England in general, are hurting worse than most of the rest of southern New England/Metro Bos-Wash corridor. Rampant hard core drugs, prostitution. low wage/ low opportunity jobs, and the only industry was fishing, ship building, or...... Drugs or prostitution.... Now the ship building is down, the fishing is almost done, and the drugs are the best deal in town. Sell your acre to the developer who thinks the cruise ships are coming in to see the Indian casinos, or the city will evict you..... But the cruise ships aren't coming in. The weather sucks, the accommodations suck, and there's nothing else to see unless you drive 3 hours north in mid October to look at leaves.

Have you ever been to New London? Your description is not accurate at all. Sure there are pockets of druggies like any small city with a population of poor minorities. OTOH, there are a lot good things happening and lots of things to do, besides Indian Casinos. A stones throw across the river, Electric Boat is taking on new hires at a frantic pace. And other employment opportunities abound. As for racing sailboats, the entire area around Fishers Island Sound is one of the most vibrant hotbeds of this activity as anywhere else you could possibly find. Just ask the Mystic River Mudheads.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard there's a really nice vacant lot where a little pink house used to be, Billy.

 

Bent,

 

I think she would appoint more liberal justices who would agree with the rest of the liberal justices in Kelo v New London.

 

That's bad from my point of view when it comes to 5th and 2nd amendment issues, along with some first amendment issues (as long as we're talking political speech and not porn).

 

Given her history, it's another given that she'll appoint a woman and probably a minority. Not always a bad thing.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think she would appoint more liberal justices who would agree with the rest of the liberal justices in Kelo v New London.

 

That's bad from my point of view when it comes to 5th and 2nd amendment issues, along with some first amendment issues (as long as we're talking political speech and not porn).

 

Given her history, it's another given that she'll appoint a woman and probably a minority. Not always a bad thing.

 

That's great and all, but not what I had asked about. Funny how red herrings like that are a problem for you when others try them.

 

Tell you what, when I'm interested in who you think Hillary will appoint to SCOTUS, I'll let you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Appointing more justices who agree with Kelo v New London seems to me the same as supporting it. It's a given.

 

Of course, the only difference between Hillary and Donald on this issue is that he has been outspoken and honest about his support for Kelo v New London. It's refreshing. Stupid, but refreshing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Appointing more justices who agree with Kelo v New London seems to me the same as supporting it. It's a given.

You believing that she'll appoint justices that agree with Kelo v New London is not the same as her actually doing so. We've already established that your belief is a given but that doesn't mean what you believe in is a given.

 

Agreeing with certain justices on some issues does not entail agreeing with them on everything. Case in point, I agree with you & Jeff in regards to Trump's recent statements. I don't agree with you on others. See how that works?

 

Of course, the only difference between Hillary and Donald on this issue is that he has been outspoken and honest about his support for Kelo v New London. It's refreshing. Stupid, but refreshing.

Get back to us when you have something other than your faith to back that up. Perhaps a statement from Hillary on her actual position in regards to the case instead of just your claims about what you think she must believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave my reasons. You may not like them, but at least they exist.

 

I'll ask again:

 

Are there any reasons to believe she opposes the Kelo v New London result? I can't find any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave my reasons. You may not like them, but at least they exist.

I don't like or dislike your reasons. No-one is questioning you have reasons either. It's just your reasons are not a valid basis from which to conclude what you have.

 

I'll ask again:

 

Are there any reasons to believe she opposes the Kelo v New London result? I can't find any.

 

You're not looking for reasons to believe she opposes the decision. You're looking for reasons to castigate her for your preconceived notion she supports it. Which is why, given a lack of evidence to found your view, you simply choose to believe it on the basis of her not stating her support/opposition.

 

Once again, someone failing to speaking out for/against something is not evidence they support/oppose it. Despite your verbosity on select subjects, there are a great many issues you don't speak about. That doesn't mean one can conclude you support one side or the other on those unstated issues, it simply means you don't speak about the subject. Nothing more, nothing less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bullshit. When one's team votes one way it is the assumption other teammates feel the same way unless otherwise stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The city of New London was wrong. They've been digging in their heels and fighting the bad fight for years, and they're still wrong.

Nobody I know who lives/ed in New London supported this decision. Even Pfizer execs I know thought it was a bad decision.

New London, and that area of New England in general, are hurting worse than most of the rest of southern New England/Metro Bos-Wash corridor. Rampant hard core drugs, prostitution. low wage/ low opportunity jobs, and the only industry was fishing, ship building, or...... Drugs or prostitution.... Now the ship building is down, the fishing is almost done, and the drugs are the best deal in town. Sell your acre to the developer who thinks the cruise ships are coming in to see the Indian casinos, or the city will evict you..... But the cruise ships aren't coming in. The weather sucks, the accommodations suck, and there's nothing else to see unless you drive 3 hours north in mid October to look at leaves.

Have you ever been to New London? Your description is not accurate at all. Sure there are pockets of druggies like any small city with a population of poor minorities. OTOH, there are a lot good things happening and lots of things to do, besides Indian Casinos. A stones throw across the river, Electric Boat is taking on new hires at a frantic pace. And other employment opportunities abound. As for racing sailboats, the entire area around Fishers Island Sound is one of the most vibrant hotbeds of this activity as anywhere else you could possibly find. Just ask the Mystic River Mudheads.....

 

I've spent quite a lot of time in and around New London, but not in the last couple of years. EB hiring again is great, a few years ago they were working a skeleton crew. Pfizer is continuing to downsize it's operation there. I'd call New London a dirty, borderline iffy city, with pockets of good stuff. F.I.S. Is excellent sailing water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Borderline cities do not have Tall Ship Festivals, New London does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bullshit. When one's team votes one way it is the assumption other teammates feel the same way unless otherwise stated.

 

That's the way I see it too.

 

Bent looks at the complete lack of any evidence that Hillary disagrees with her team in this case and concludes that we just can't tell whether she's part of her team.

 

She is.

 

Tell you what, Bent, since your reason for not having an opinion on this topic is that I might reply, I promise I will not if you just offer an opinion. Did Stevens get it right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've spent quite a lot of time in and around New London, but not in the last couple of years. EB hiring again is great, a few years ago they were working a skeleton crew. Pfizer is continuing to downsize it's operation there....

The basis for the Kelo v New London decision was that Pfizer's plans would yield more tax revenue than allowing Kelo to keep her home.

 

So if a company promises the moon, that makes taking property OK. If they later fail to achieve their goals, should they have to restore what they have taken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites