Sign in to follow this  
frank james

Kelo v. City of New London,

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

In that case, you really should watch Little Pink House. It has a feel-good Disney ending where the evil libertarians are conquered and Pfizer ends up with the little pink house in question.

Tom, I have other trails to walk down. They lead to finer destinations.

Roger Stone makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. He converted to Libertarianism around 2010. What took him so long? He thought like a Libertarian, IMO, thirty years ago. I can spot Libertarian DNA simply by looking for corrupt thinking.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Frank James" started this thread eight years ago. He is now banned. The thread is now on page 3, after eight years. Most of the posts are Tom Ray's.

It turns out that Kelo vs. New London is a (failed) Libertarian assault on eminent domain. It was presented by the"Institute of Justice," a Koch-Brothers non-profit with a $20 million annual budget. The Institute of Justice was founded by Clint Bolick and a few other Libertarians. 

Donald Trump put Bolick on the higher court of AZ. Bolick has no judicial experience or background.

The figures behind Kelo don't pass the sniff test.

When given the chance in Post 182 of this thread, Tom Ray would not discuss the four other SC presentations of the "Institute for Justice." Each was successful. Without even checking on their outcomes, I smell a problem.

@Uncooperative Tom. Now that we're straight up, tell us about the benefits of the "Institute for Justice."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

In that case, you really should watch Little Pink House. It has a feel-good Disney ending where the evil libertarians are conquered and Pfizer ends up with the little pink house in question.

Tom, I have other trails to walk down. They lead to finer destinations.

I'm not sure how any destination could be finer?

I mean, the evil libertarians were defeated. Trumpist cronyism ruled the day. Pfizer got the lady's house, knocked it down, and as far as I know still has a vacant lot on the site. What's not to like for a fan of Trump and the eminent domain cronyism he advocates like yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

The figures behind Kelo don't pass the sniff test.

Do you mean Pfizer or the Economic Redevelopment Commission, or what? We probably agree on that.

Not everyone is happy about the victory of the cronies over the evil libertarians, you know. Even people you may admire, like this one:

On 7/21/2010 at 9:02 PM, Sol Rosenberg said:

Kelo is the worst case I have ever seen decided by the Court. The individual has no chance.

Why do you suppose Sol would be upset that the evil libertarians were defeated in this case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

You just want to inject the corruption of Koch money into the affairs of the homeless?


Losing her home to Pfizer did not make Ms. Kelo homeless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


Losing her home to Pfizer did not make Ms. Kelo homeless.

Fuck off, Tom. Sure enough, the ripples of Citizen's United have allowed the dark money flowing through theNRA to boost Trump, for guns.  At best, the bucks are blood money from the U.S. gun lobby. At worst, it is Russian money. Who knows where the month came from? Not even Mueller.

How many homeless can dance on the head of a pin? Fuck off.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On April 11, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

I'm not sure how any destination could be finer?

I mean, the evil libertarians were defeated. Trumpist cronyism ruled the day. Pfizer got the lady's house, knocked it down, and as far as I know still has a vacant lot on the site. What's not to like for a fan of Trump and the eminent domain cronyism he advocates like yourself?

Pfizer cancelled plans for their building. A huge mountain of debris from SuperStorm Sandy was dumped on the empty lot and remained for quite a while...in effect it became a dump. IDK current status. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2018 at 11:36 AM, RKoch said:

Pfizer cancelled plans for their building. A huge mountain of debris from SuperStorm Sandy was dumped on the empty lot and remained for quite a while...in effect it became a dump. IDK current status. 

Apparently, it's home to some feral cats. I like cats but am not sure about that whole "best and highest use thing" that was the basis of the case.

Still not so sure about it.

http://reason.com/volokh/2018/04/18/little-pink-house-brings-the-kelo-case-t

Quote

The soon-to-be-released independent film Little Pink House dramatizes the story behind Kelo v. City of New London, the notorious 2005 Supreme Court decision in which the justices ruled that it is permissible for the government to condemn homes in order to promote "economic development." Although the Fifth Amendment only permits the taking of private property for "public use," a narrow 5-4 majority ruled that a taking that transfers property to private developers is permissible. The Kelo case generated a massive public reaction, with over 80% of Americans opposing the ruling, and 45 states passing reform laws intended to restrict the use of eminent domain for private development. No other case united such disparate people and groups as the NAACP, libertarian property rights advocates, Ralph Nader, and Rush Limbaugh.

It's nice that we have someone from the 20% here.

Quote

The film even manages to accurately depict some key aspects of the main legal issue at stake in the litigation: is the correct definition of "public use" broad enough to encompass anything that might benefit the public in some way, or is it limited to publicly owned projects or private ones that have a legal duty to serve the entire public, such as a public utility? As the film shows, one of the key moments in the case came when Justice Sandra Day O'Connor asked New London's lawyer whether it would be permissible to condemn a Motel 6 in order to replace it with a Ritz Carlton simply because the latter might produce more tax revenue: he answered yes.

That answer is consistent with the Berman case. The store at the center of that case was a profitable, established business, yet was still part of the "blight" to be "cured" by wise government officials.

Places to see Little Pink House

http://littlepinkhousemovie.com/action.html#header3-2p

Looks like I'll have to drive to Miami or Tampa at the end of next month to see it. I'll probably go to Tampa just because it's an hour closer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2018 at 6:05 AM, jocal505 said:

Fuck off, Tom. Sure enough, the ripples of Citizen's United have allowed the dark money flowing through theNRA to boost Trump, for guns.  At best, the bucks are blood money from the U.S. gun lobby. At worst, it is Russian money. Who knows where the month came from? Not even Mueller.

How many homeless can dance on the head of a pin? Fuck off.

_everything_ is the fault of citizen's united and the NRA, isn't it Joe? Even the Kelo case.. somehow...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2018 at 6:42 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Rescuing Harlem From Blight

The "blight" problem is that there are city-owned vacant lots that the city has let sit idle, despite offers.

The solution? Destroy an ongoing business and turn those properties into city-owned vacant lots.

That's what Economic Development Corporations do. It's why there's a beautiful, vacant tract where a little pink house once stood.

539w.jpg

Mayor DeBlasio defended the taking of active businesses that were deemed blight
 

Quote

 

Mayor de Blasio's office defended an East Harlem project that is forcing out a family dry cleaning business — but the longtime businessman isn’t the only one who says he’s getting hosed.

“This two-block area of East Harlem is being developed to include a $300 million cancer research center, 800 affordable homes — 200 more than proposed under the previous administration — and open space,” de Blasio spokeswoman Melissa Grace said Sunday, after the Daily News reported on the plight of Fancy Cleaners, which has been seized by the city using eminent domain after years of legal challenges to make way for the redevelopment.

“Small businesses are critical to this city, and we are working closely with this business owner to find them a new spot.”

Owner Damon Bae says the city is offering his family so little money for their lots that they can’t afford a new site in the neighborhood, and the business will likely have to close.

 

Based on what they've done with their vacant lots over the past few decades and on what happened in New London, I'd say the promise to create "open space" is believable. The rest? Not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2018 at 3:59 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Places to see Little Pink House

http://littlepinkhousemovie.com/action.html#header3-2p

Looks like I'll have to drive to Miami or Tampa at the end of next month to see it. I'll probably go to Tampa just because it's an hour closer.

 
Quote

 

Thursday, May 31, 2018, 7:30pm–9:08pm
at AMC Classic Centro Ybor 10
1600 East 8th Ave, Tampa, FL 33605  

 

 
We've got our tickets for that showing.
I haven't been to a theater in at least 15 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Careful you're arguing against the premise of maximizing profit for those most able to grab it. This creates the most wealth and gives the most freedom to all citizens, according to our proselytizing Libertarian brothers.


Actually, you've just described the winning argument in the topic case.

Problem is, it was evil libertarians opposing profits and taxes for all who brought this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2018 at 8:58 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
Quote

 

Thursday, May 31, 2018, 7:30pm–9:08pm
at AMC Classic Centro Ybor 10
1600 East 8th Ave, Tampa, FL 33605  

 

 
We've got our tickets for that showing.
I haven't been to a theater in at least 15 years.

And it looks like I may not go.

My wife got an email saying that if they don't sell 40 more seats, the showing will be cancelled.

Interest in this subject outside of libertarian circles has been Eva Dent in this thread since 2010. All the libertarians I know up there have already bought tickets and I don't expect a surge of interest from Duopoly types, so it looks like I'll have to get Little Pink House on DVD or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give Susette Kelo Her Land Back

That's the suggestion from the author of "Little Pink House" to at least do something useful and conciliatory with the land.

Whether anyone in power will listen remains to be seen. And taking it from the current owners to give to the original owners is hardly more of a "public use" than the original taking.

I doubt anyone will listen. The Tampa area has a population around 3 million. But couldn't find 40 more people interested in this case, so the showing I planned to attend has been cancelled.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2018 at 8:42 PM, SloopJonB said:
On 5/25/2018 at 8:11 PM, mad said:

How did we go from UK knife law to Tom’s.22 discussion?

Every thread ends up discussing his fucking .22


Not this one.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Amati said:

I got a fund raising letter from one of the Koch Brothers yesterday- the argument seemed to revolve around justice & freedom for the common man being a good thing, rather than $$$$$$$$$ for the elites.  

Sorta like the topic case, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Need some neighborhoods and some farmland?

Don't want to go through that messy, expensive purchasing process?

Just Seize It!
 

Quote

 

Powerful forces—including Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R), the Taiwanese manufacturing giant Foxconn, and President Donald Trump—have aligned, to turn more than 1,000 acres of Wisconsin farmland and family homes into an LCD screen manufacturing facility.

Reason visited the village of Mt. Pleasant to speak with homeowners facing the threat of eminent domain, and the local government officials responsible for acquiring the land on behalf of Foxconn, which is receiving $4.5 billion in subsidies and tax breaks. The project was sold to the public with a promise of 13,000 jobs and billions in additional tax revenue.

To assemble land for the project, local officials have already declared entire neighborhoods to be "blighted," with the goal of seizing homes with eminent domain, a legal term that typically describes the process of taking property from a private owner to facilitate a public use.

But what qualifies as a "public use?" In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that the Connecticut town of New London was justified in seizing the land of homeowner Susette Kelo to hand it over to the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer on the grounds that it would spur economic development in an economically depressed area.

 

And here we go again. Pfizer has been replaced by Foxxconn and Suzette Kelo has been replaced by other victims, but the situation is almost exactly the same as the topic case. "Blighted" means "in the way of our cronies." "Public use" means "use by our cronies."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2015 at 3:02 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

The Donald on Kelo vs New London

 

Quote
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.

2015 was a fun year to mock The Donald. Too bad it never occured to me to name his hair.

"I want to build a hotel/factory/stadium" is not a public use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm...

A slow pitch to anyone who might wish to mock Trump in a forum filled with such people and no swings.

This is why property owners must turn to the evil libertarians at the Institute for Justice in cases like the topic one. Luckily for all of you, we don't give up nor go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 years later -

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/07/24/finally-house-unanimously-passes-response-kelo/

Today, the House unanimously passed Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner’s (WI-05) Private Property Rights Protection Act (H.R. 1689).

The bill addresses the controversial Supreme Court decision in the 2005 case Kelo v. City of New London, which expanded the eminent domain power granted by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. In Kelo, the Court ruled that “economic development” can be justified as a “public use” under the Constitution’s Takings Clause.

To combat this expansion of power, H.R. 1689 would make any state or locality that uses the economic development justification for eminent domain ineligible from receiving federal economic development funds for two years. This creates a major incentive for governments to respect the private property rights of its citizens.

Additionally, the legislation bars the federal government from exercising eminent domain powers for the purposes of economic development

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sean said:

13 years later -

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/07/24/finally-house-unanimously-passes-response-kelo/

Today, the House unanimously passed Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner’s (WI-05) Private Property Rights Protection Act (H.R. 1689).

The bill addresses the controversial Supreme Court decision in the 2005 case Kelo v. City of New London, which expanded the eminent domain power granted by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. In Kelo, the Court ruled that “economic development” can be justified as a “public use” under the Constitution’s Takings Clause.

To combat this expansion of power, H.R. 1689 would make any state or locality that uses the economic development justification for eminent domain ineligible from receiving federal economic development funds for two years. This creates a major incentive for governments to respect the private property rights of its citizens.

Additionally, the legislation bars the federal government from exercising eminent domain powers for the purposes of economic development

Pardon me.

Can't you see that this is a private thread?

WTF? Am I going to have to start locking the door after I post?

Seriously, glad to see this and especially glad it was unanimous. Who knew we had so many Clarence Thomas fans in the House?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2018 at 9:15 AM, jocal505 said:

The thread is now on page 3, after eight years. Most of the posts are Tom Ray's.

Yes. Odd, isn't it? It's almost like people don't reply if I am talking about this subject. And some others. Most others. Except one.

 

On 5/26/2018 at 9:50 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Give Susette Kelo Her Land Back

That's the suggestion from the author of "Little Pink House" to at least do something useful and conciliatory with the land.

Whether anyone in power will listen remains to be seen. And taking it from the current owners to give to the original owners is hardly more of a "public use" than the original taking.

I doubt anyone will listen. The Tampa area has a population around 3 million. But couldn't find 40 more people interested in this case, so the showing I planned to attend has been cancelled.

 

Although Tampa is light on Libertarians and couldn't muster 40 people who give a shit about this issue so I could see it in a theater, Little Pink House is now streaming and on DVD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

19 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yes. Odd, isn't it?

Not at all. It's you trying to make an issue of it. Like Happy Jack, you've proven there is little value in your posts outside the occasional catharsis achieved by mocking you. 

However, you keep chewing on that bone. I'm sure some day a new poster with no prior experience of your bullshit will believe you long enough for you to prove it to them too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

 

Not at all. It's you trying to make an issue of it. Like Happy Jack, you've proven there is little value in your posts outside the occasional catharsis achieved by mocking you. 

However, you keep chewing on that bone. I'm sure some day a new poster with no prior experience of your bullshit will believe you long enough for you to prove it to them too. 

I'm told that I used to be tolerable but have changed.

I don't see it. My posts in this thread from 2010 don't seem different from the 2018 ones to me.

How are they different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I'm told that I used to be tolerable but have changed.

I don't see it. My posts in this thread from 2010 don't seem different from the 2018 ones to me.

How are they different?

 

8 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Like Happy Jack, you've proven there is little value in your posts outside the occasional catharsis achieved by mocking you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, taxi medallion owners, the collapse of your oligopoly was not a "taking" and doesn't require compensation
 

Quote

 

But when Uber and Lyft entered the scene, they dramatically expanded the supply of available rides. Uber alone has roughly 10,000 drivers operating in Miami-Dade, with over 100,000 drivers statewide. Ride-hailing has become so popular, it’s been partly responsible for a dramatic drop in drunk driving. Last week, the Miami Herald reported that the number of DUI arrests plunged by 31% in Miami and by 65% in Miami-Dade.

The rise of ride-hailing was facilitated by a drastic change in the regulatory environment. At first, county code enforcement officers conducted several undercover sting operations, ticketing drivers and even impounding their cars. But in 2016, Miami-Dade County approved an ordinance that legalized ride-hailing. One year later, the Florida legislature enacted a new law to regulate “transportation network entities” on the state level, a move that preempted municipal ordinances, which included the Miami-Dade ordinance as well as many local laws that severely restricted ride-hailing.

Facing greater competition, the value for a taxi medallion has since plunged by 90%, and now fetches $35,000 at auction. With a once lucrative business model now imploding, three taxi companies, Checker Cab, B&S Taxi and Miadeco, took the county to court and demanded a bailout. Echoing legal arguments that failed in Boston, ChicagoGeorgia, and Philadelphia, the medallion owners argued that by legalizing Uber and Lyft, Miami-Dade County had “significantly devalued” their medallions.

In their view, deregulation was an unconstitutional “taking” that violated their Fifth Amendment rights. Channeling Dr. Evil, the taxi owners even demanded $1 billion in “just compensation” for the drop in medallion value.

Writing for the majority, Judge Stanley Marcus meticulously dismissed their claim.

 

Hah. Live by the bureaucrat, die by the bureaucrat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This comment is way funnier in this thread.

24 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

i gather these Libertarian figures are in it for the glory, not to benefit the nation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

I demand Kelo Tom.


Your wish is my command.

Now what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:


Your wish is my command.

Now what?

You jerked (off) to this thread, from a nifty and active discussion about violence itself. You really want the discussion of violence to follow you here?

Let's continue here . You were conflating violence and the drug war. Carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2018 at 8:24 PM, Mrleft8 said:

another Thomas. An obviously biased member of the SCOTUS who can't really be touched...


This makes me wonder: what is Thomas' obvious bias and how is it reflected in, for example, his opinion in the topic case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@.22 Tom

"Kelo Tom" is a bright guy, right? I think so, personally. Interesting, too. But I need to trust him.

So who is Japan Tom, on the suicide thread?

Who is Chicago Tom, on the gun control threads?

Who is Judge Taney Tom, during racial discussion?

I would simply like to find a consistent Tom. Because if TR is bright, he is habitually, intentionally, working stupid shit into the subject matter of several topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manufacturing Cronyism and Eminent Domain
 

Quote

 

In October 2017, the couple learned from a local news report that Mount Pleasant would be the site of a new manufacturing facility. Foxconn—a Taiwanese company known for making iPhones in the Chinese city of Shenzhen—was coming to town. Foxconn planned to turn more than 1,000 acres of farmland into an LCD screen factory.

Three days after seeing the news report, Kim heard from her local councilman. "They said they would be taking our home through eminent domain," a policy that allows the government to assume ownership of private property whether the current holder likes it or not.

Three other affected families have already filed lawsuits against Mount Pleasant. This summer, the village moved forward with eminent domain proceedings against two of them. (The Mahoneys received an offer for their house from city officials in July of this year, which they found unacceptable; their counteroffer has so far been met with silence.)

In theory, the Mahoneys should be protected. Although the Supreme Court ruled in 2005's Kelo v. New London that the government could take property to make way for private development, Wisconsin was one of 43 states that changed its laws to make such efforts more difficult. But even with the updated limits on eminent domain, local lawmakers believed they had found a way out: blight. By declaring that the Mahoneys' newly built home was in a blighted area—which only became blighted after the council voted to change the zoning to accommodate Foxconn—the village could clear the land for someone else's private use.

 

This is not new. As noted early in this thread, the Kelo case was decided mostly based on two prior cases, one about land rights in Hawaii and one about a profitable store in a... you guessed it... blighted area.

Justice Thomas noted the problem with this in his dissent:

Quote

 

These two misguided lines of precedent converged in Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954), and Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984). Relying on those lines of cases, the Court in Berman and Midkiff upheld condemnations for the purposes of slum clearance and land redistribution, respectively. “Subject to specific constitutional limitations,” Berman proclaimed, “when the legislature has spoken, the public interest has been declared in terms well-nigh conclusive. In such cases the legislature, not the judiciary, is the main guardian of the public needs to be served by social legislation.” 348 U.S., at 32. That reasoning was question begging, since the question to be decided was whether the “specific constitutional limitation” of the Public Use Clause prevented the taking of the appellant’s (concededly “nonblighted”) department store. Id., at 31, 34. Berman also appeared to reason that any exercise by Congress of an enumerated power (in this case, its plenary power over the District of Columbia) was per se a “public use” under the Fifth Amendment. Id., at 33. But the very point of the Public Use Clause is to limit that power. See supra, at 3—4.

    More fundamentally, Berman and Midkiff erred by equating the eminent domain power with the police power of States. See Midkiff, 467 U.S., at 240 (“The ‘public use’ requirement is … coterminous with the scope of a sovereign’s police powers”); Berman, 348 U.S., at 32. Traditional uses of that regulatory power, such as the power to abate a nuisance, required no compensation whatsoever, see Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 668—669 (1887), in sharp contrast to the takings power, which has always required compensation, see supra, at 3, and n. 1. The question whether the State can take property using the power of eminent domain is therefore distinct from the question whether it can regulate property pursuant to the police power. See, e.g., Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1014 (1992); Mugler, supra, at 668—669. In Berman, for example, if the slums at issue were truly “blighted,” then state nuisance law, see, e.g., supra, at 5—6; Lucas, supra, at 1029, not the power of eminent domain, would provide the appropriate remedy. To construe the Public Use Clause to overlap with the States’ police power conflates these two categories.3

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2018 at 9:15 AM, jocal505 said:

It turns out that Kelo vs. New London is a (failed) Libertarian assault on eminent domain. It was presented by the"Institute of Justice," a Koch-Brothers non-profit with a $20 million annual budget. The Institute of Justice was founded by Clint Bolick and a few other Libertarians. 

Donald Trump put Bolick on the higher court of AZ. Bolick has no judicial experience or background.

The figures behind Kelo don't pass the sniff test.

Or...

8 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Kelo Tom is fine.


Or maybe...

On 11/12/2018 at 5:59 AM, jocal505 said:

 Since the "Institute for Justice" is based on money from big tobacco, this could get interesting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogballs Tom said:

Or...


Or maybe...

 

Tom likes to do fancy editing. This is his link from two posts up. 

Quote

Plinking is fine. But your intellectual word is troubling.

Kelo Tom is fine. But these other faces are marginal

  • JAPAN TOM (the suicide whisperer)
  • CDC TOM (shits on the CDC, unless cherry picking them)
  • ROAD KILL TOM (will stamp out mass shootings for us)
  • JUDGE TANEY TOM (had a big eureka, and long did it last)
  • MILLER-EXTOLS-THE-PEOPLE TOM (permanently confused by his own cover sheet)
  • GANGSTAS-DISPROVE-WHITE-GUN-OWNERSHIP-PROBLEMS TOM (with the racebater slide job)

(on holiday, but should be in the big house):-- STANDARD MODEL TOM (hmm, won't support or reject it)

                                                                              --MLK TOM (shits on MLK's church right before, and just                                                                                                       after, Dylann Roof)

 

We know one another. And we have the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Tom likes to do fancy editing. This is his link from two posts up. 

Yes, but the part that's relevant to this thread looks like this:

10 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Or...

10 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Kelo Tom is fine.

 

Except that conflicts with your view that the Kelo case was an attack on the American justice system by a bunch of tobacco lobbyists.

Isn't it funny how you're the only one here who thinks the Kelo case illegitimate? It's almost like the rest are smart enough to know a major political loss and avoid it and you're not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Yes, but the part that's relevant to this thread looks like this:

Except that conflicts with your view that the Kelo case was an attack on the American justice system by a bunch of tobacco lobbyists.

Isn't it funny how you're the only one here who thinks the Kelo case illegitimate? It's almost like the rest are smart enough to know a major political loss and avoid it and you're not.

I find you have studied the Kelo angles well, and present historical guideposts to support a pretty good point. I don't trust you enough to follow you one quarter of an inch, however.

 I am gunshy, mate. You butcher a certain subject (meaning gun violence) like a dynamo, skewing shit, spewing shit, and presenting silly nonsense, like a fool.  I am quite skeered of anything you touch, mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

I find you have studied the Kelo angles well, and present historical guideposts to support a pretty good point. I don't trust you enough to follow you one quarter of an inch, however.

 I am gunshy, mate. You butcher a certain subject (meaning gun violence) like a dynamo, skewing shit, spewing shit, and presenting silly nonsense, like a fool.  I am quite skeered of anything you touch, mate.

You're far from alone.

My heresy about the TeamD crusade to ban our squirrel shooters causes many to shun me. At least you admit it.

It's stupid, though. How do you think I come to agree with people like Bernie Sanders on things like foreign policy and the surveillance state? Because I can agree with a person on one issue and not on another and there are no radioactive issues like the gungrabby crusade that just cause me to shun a person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

You're far from alone.

My heresy about the TeamD crusade to ban our squirrel shooters causes many to shun me. At least you admit it.

It's stupid, though. How do you think I come to agree with people like Bernie Sanders on things like foreign policy and the surveillance state? Because I can agree with a person on one issue and not on another and there are no radioactive issues like the gungrabby crusade that just cause me to shun a person.

Your posts are LOADED with, cluttered with, offensive triggers (gungrabby, TeamD, fucking squirrel assault weapon yechhh!) And you trashed your own creds, so there's that. You demonize peer review. You avoid a vast body of research, on at least two subjects.. You lie about the basics of women's safety, while campaigning for the tool of femicide. You won't let racial discussion get beyond the spamming of the basics of Dred Scott. You lie about the existence of gun confiscation in Colonial times, no retraction, so you thereby trash historical fact. You besmirch MLK, repeatedly, putting him on the level of a mere gun permit denial. You tried to drag his church through the mud, mate.

You hold the character of a person who can't weigh in on a Libertarian flagship, The Standard Model of the Second Amendment. You stink bad, my good man.

And you want me to explore Kelo with you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the thread topic is Kelo.

You can search for info on it yourself, since you won't follow any link I offer.

There might be one or two threads in which to discuss the only thing you want to discuss.

You can search for those too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

You can search for info on it yourself, since you won't follow any link I offer.

Nice pity party...you don't want me there. My time is not the only person's time you waste with these rick rolls. Some are cute, some go to your pet threads, and others are worthless. It seems to entertain you to waste our time, and to annoy.

Then you get put on ignore. My life would be cleaned up with you on ignore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

My life would be cleaned up with you on ignore. 

For the sweet love of Christ Almighty, please do it already. Do you realise just how many threads we would be able to all enjoy if you, Tom, & Jeff would stop making out in them all the fucking time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

For the sweet love of Christ Almighty, please do it already. Do you realise just how many threads we would be able to all enjoy if you, Tom, & Jeff would stop making out in them all the fucking time?

And if people commented on the thread topic instead of Jocal's obsession, it might derail him.

But there are no partisan shitfight points to be scored here. TeamR is led by the Crony in Chief, a big supporter of crony deals like the topic one. TeamD isn't going to say that the liberals on the court were wrong and Crony Community Development Projects do more harm than good for the reasons Justice Thomas stated.

So even though, if cornered and somehow forced to be honest, I'd bet most here agree with the libertarians that this practice has become abusive, you can't ask TeamR to quit with the crony capitalism and you can't ask TeamD to quit with the social engineering projects.

Bottom line: if they come for your property, you'll have to turn to the Institute for Justice like others do because the Duopoly LIKE this arrangement. It empowers them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

For the sweet love of Christ Almighty, please do it already. Do you realise just how many threads we would be able to all enjoy if you, Tom, & Jeff would stop making out in them all the fucking time?

As a person who skims these threads because I'm interested in potential Govt overreach, I have to say that Jocal is the one polluting them with extraneous crap. Everyone seems to be ignoring him on the gun threads because he's said everything he knows many times over and shows no ability for new thoughts. Result - he tries to drag the same shit into other interesting threads on civil forfeiture, potential abuse of eminent domain and other topics that Tom has started and I find interesting. I frequently don't agree with Tom but the topics are interesting.

So - Jocal, do me and a lot of other readers a great favour. Fuck off.

FKT

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case anyone drops by looking for an on-topic post instead of more gossip,

Quote

 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,” United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152, n. 4 (1938), 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.

Justice Thomas is still right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

End of a Community Development
 

Quote

 

The closure of the plant some 37 years after the Poletown condemnations were upheld in court doesn't by itself prove that the takings were unjustified. We cannot expect any factory to remain open forever - and indeed keeping unprofitable facilities open actually damages the economy in the long run. What does undermine the "economic development" rationale for the Poletown condemnations is that the use of eminent domain destroyed far more value than it created. As I described in a 2004 article about the Poletown case and its aftermath, the new factory never created anything close to the 6000 jobs promised by GM and city officials. On the other hand, an enormous amount of harm was caused by the displacement of 4000 people, and the destruction of numerous homes, businesses, churches, and schools. In addition, local, state, and federal governments spent some $250 million in public funds on the project (GM paid only $8 million to acquire the land). That money could have been better spent elsewhere. Poletown and other similar cases demonstrate that the use of eminent domain to forcibly displace people for private development projects is both unjust and likely to harm local economies more than it benefits them.

The Poletown takings attracted widespread opposition on both left and right. Conservatives and libertarians denounced the violation of private property rights. Left-wing critics attacked the seizure of property belonging (mostly) to working and lower-middle class people for the benefit of a powerful corporation. A small but gradually growing group of lawyers and legal scholars began to rethink the then-dominant view that almost any supposed public benefit qualifies as a "public use" sufficient to authorize the use of eminent domain under state and federal constitutions.

Protests against the Poletown takings failed to prevent authorities from going forward with the condemnations, or persuade the Michigan Supreme Court to strike them down. But the widespread opposition, combined with the poor results of the project, ultimately helped produce some beneficial change. In County of Wayne v. Hathcock (2004), the Michigan Supreme Court unanimously overruled Poletown and held that takings for private "economic development" violate the state constitution because they are not genuine "public uses." Several other state supreme courts have issued similar rulings since then.

In its controversial 2005 ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, the US Supreme Court upheld "economic development" takings under the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the federal Constitution. But the ruling was a close 5-4 decision, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's much-quoted dissent drew extensively on the Michigan Supreme Court's reasoning in Hathcock.

 

Based on the part I bolded above and the previous post, it looks like Justice Thomas can be categorized as a "left wing" critic of these crony projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2018 at 6:43 PM, Bent Sailor said:

For the sweet love of Christ Almighty, please do it already. Do you realise just how many threads we would be able to all enjoy if you, Tom, & Jeff would stop making out in them all the fucking time?

You don't recognize the difference, but when I get detached from PA, bogus disinformation is left to stand.  IMO it's good to check for daily disinformation, and to report the factual pattern in the courts, the new developments, the industry indicators, to encourage the moderate POV, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You don't recognize the difference, but when I get detached from PA, bogus disinformation is left to stand.  IMO it's good to check for daily disinformation, and to report the factual pattern in the courts, the new developments, the industry indicators, to encourage the moderate POV, etc. 

Absolutely no-one sees the difference that only you claim exists. The only change is that Jeff & Tom have you to beat on when they get bored. Nothing more.

You've changed no minds, removed no arguments, influenced no opinion. You're a joke who might one day make an argument worth noting that gets ignored because the vast majority of what you say is ignorable drivel driven by a need to argue. The forum is better when you're not around derailing conversations or trying to wedge your issues into unrelated topics. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were Tom's sock made up to give himself a mirror image to play with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2018 at 3:40 AM, Fah Kiew Tu said:

As a person who skims these threads because I'm interested in potential Govt overreach, I have to say that Jocal is the one polluting them with extraneous crap. Everyone seems to be ignoring him on the gun threads because he's said everything he knows many times over and shows no ability for new thoughts. Result - he tries to drag the same shit into other interesting threads on civil forfeiture, potential abuse of eminent domain and other topics that Tom has started and I find interesting. I frequently don't agree with Tom but the topics are interesting.

So - Jocal, do me and a lot of other readers a great favour. Fuck off.

FKT

You know there's a forum tool to use if someone pisses you off, right? It's really fucking simple tool to use and - boom - they've fucked right off from threads you read until you change the setting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You don't recognize the difference, but when I get detached from PA, bogus disinformation is left to stand.  IMO it's good to check for daily disinformation, and to report the factual pattern in the courts, the new developments, the industry indicators, to encourage the moderate POV, etc. 

 

5 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Absolutely no-one sees the difference that only you claim exists. The only change is that Jeff & Tom have you to beat on when they get bored. Nothing more.

You've changed no minds, removed no arguments, influenced no opinion. You're a joke who might one day make an argument worth noting that gets ignored because the vast majority of what you say is ignorable drivel driven by a need to argue. The forum is better when you're not around derailing conversations or trying to wedge your issues into unrelated topics. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were Tom's sock made up to give himself a mirror image to play with. 

 

5 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

You know there's a forum tool to use if someone pisses you off, right? It's really fucking simple tool to use and - boom - they've fucked right off from threads you read until you change the setting!

Thanks, guys!

I really hadn't considered any of those perspectives on the topic case at all!

Great input!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

You know there's a forum tool to use if someone pisses you off, right? It's really fucking simple tool to use and - boom - they've fucked right off from threads you read until you change the setting!

Yeah but it's a blunt tool. If there was a way of ignoring a person's postings to a particular thread, that would be more useful IMO. I'd leave his comments in the gun threads.

That said Jocal may well be No 2 in my ignore list because I can't recall, offhand, ever reading anything he's posted that was worth the time to do it. OTOH I've skimmed over an awful lot of tendentious bullshit.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Thanks, guys!

You're welcome. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made an effort to change the gossip to content ratio over in the asset forfeiture thread and noticed that the author of the article I posted has written a book on the topic case.

I haven't read it but might have to just because I love the title:

The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

You've changed no minds, removed no arguments, influenced no opinion. You're a joke who might one day make an argument worth noting that gets ignored because the vast majority of what you say is ignorable drivel driven by a need to argue. The forum is better when you're not around derailing conversations or trying to wedge your issues into unrelated topics. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were Tom's sock made up to give himself a mirror image to play with. 

This is a flat angle, IMO. While flawed enough of course, the main thing I have done is to introduce facts, from every angle I can think of. It was big fun, Bentley.

I don't bother "winning" arguments (with the disingenuous) too much. I just get back to dishing out facts, on Political Anarchy. Which, again, is fun, if danger is in the air.

The American problem, which you see pretty keenly, is made up of disinformation. Disinformation bad. 

And the reaction from gun guys is the entertainment. FOUR YEARS OF RACE-BAITING AN EX-SOCIAL WORKER, etc. I get called a liar three times a week. I get attacked a lot, by exposed gun extremists.

I thought that stereotypical gun guys stunk in 2012, but I wasn't sure,. (I'd never been around the type.) Now I know. Now many of us know. The values and the working foundation of these guys is piss poor. I conclude the guns themselves are an effect, a liability, a tool for ultra-violence, not a cause.

I did my thing for a bit. OTOH I don't need to trap myself as a target for cheap seaters, on PA.  Let's see what develops.

Let's hear some good ideas, because I expect the sources of gun disinformation, on Political Anarchy,  to continue to have negative effects on the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:
15 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Absolutely no-one sees the difference that only you claim exists.

Bent Sailor logic, and disciplined writing, might point out that you can't speak for others...at least outside of yer chronic hubris. I have presented science and colorful history galore. I think some folks picked up the benefit of the peer-approved information. 

The quality of many was contrasted with the basic narrative of the SAF and NRA. ;)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

people crossposting really sucks, doesn't it?

Hello, boys. Hmmm. Interpersonal race-baiting gets slipped into many threads.  Pointless shit. Stupid shit.

We could clean this up, you will find me even more co-operative after we clean up stupid shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

I really hadn't considered any of those perspectives on the topic case at all!

Bullshit tap-dancer. ^^^ Let's discuss topic cases, mate.

You have been stalking me with race-baiting, all over our threads, for four years. Join me, Tom,  in developing some workable thread purity, and other shit. :D  My PM is open.

Edited by jocal505

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Let's discuss topic cases, mate.

I agree! And congratulations on your first move in the direction of the thread topic! Have at it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

I agree! And congratulations on your first move in the direction of the thread topic! Have at it!

It's like this. Integrity would help you, to sell this and other topics. Yet you have none, if you are indecisive about The Standard Model of the Second Amendment. Your elk bring gunz and Citizens United, so you bring baggage. WTF?

 

You "agree," eh?  Overall, the racebaiter red ink kinda needs to retire to assemble thread purity.

 Have you no shame sir? That's a line from the McCarthy hearings. And this is fun shit, driven by peer pressure. :huh:

Quote

Kelo Tom is fine. But these other faces are marginal

  • JAPAN TOM (the suicide whisperer)
  • CDC TOM (shits on the CDC, unless cherry picking them)
  • ROAD KILL TOM (will stamp out mass shootings for us)
  • CHICAGO TOM (tools: uses gun violence epidemic to further gun cause)
  • JUDGE TANEY TOM (had a big eureka, and long did it last)
  • MILLER-EXTOLS-THE-PEOPLE TOM (permanently confused by his own cover sheet)
  • GANGSTAS-DISPROVE-WHITE-GUN-OWNER-PROBLEMS TOM (with the race-baiter slide job)
  • DYLANN ROOF TOM (posits religious or political assassination)
  • RACEBAITER TOM (whoops, soiled himself for several years, on the interwebs)
  • DEBATE WINNER TOM (begins by inventing a position for his opponent)

STATUS ON HoLIDAY (but should be in the big house):

  • -- STANDARD MODEL TOM (hmm, won't support or reject it)
  • -- MLK TOM (spamned an interesting poster boy for must issue)
  • --REV. MOSTELLER TOM (shits up on MLK's church the month before and the month after, Dylann Roof)
  •  --THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS TOM (not a hard charger if the cadavers are warm)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2018 at 4:15 PM, dogballs Tom said:
On 11/12/2018 at 2:59 AM, jocal505 said:

 Since the "Institute for Justice" is based on money from big tobacco, this could get interesting.

Tom hounded me for certain info for three weeks He demanded a tie between this "Institure for Justice" and Big tobacco. ( I strung Tom out a bit, based on certain reading.). Just one tie is IJ founder Chip Mellor III, who lobbied for big tobbacco 25 years ago. If I look harder I suppose I can find others.

Bigmouth Tom fell silent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Just one tie is IJ founder Chip Mellor III, who lobbied for big tobbacco 25 years ago.

Bigmouth Tom fell silent. 

Actually, I'm pretty sure Tom did the same thing I did when I saw your "winner" argument: rolled his eyes and said "so what?"

Are you forever defined by everyone you ever worked for, Joe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

I agree! And congratulations on your first move in the direction of the thread topic! Have at it!

Unfortunately, Joe has already claimed a lack of interest in this topic - via a comment in another thread.

He prefers to just complain about the "evil" libertarians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

Actually, I'm pretty sure Tom did the same thing I did when I saw your "winner" argument: rolled his eyes and said "so what?"

Are you forever defined by everyone you ever worked for, Joe?

Hi DeadEye. The values were predictable. Kelo might be a wonderful cause, could be, but apples fall from nearby trees.

  • The SAF printed global warming denial shit from "Liberty Plaza", before the SAF cause was invented.
  • Roger Stone's values, and that of Corsi, the birther movement founder with a Harvard Phd, will land them in jail.
  • And one of the five "Institute for Justice" causes is a tea party special.
  • Think toothpaste, think tube too. Pooplius already has one "fool me once," the gun cause. His ignorant position defies peer reviewed science.  

Just sayin' that he needs to get better at this, needs to carry less exposure, what with Citizens United and the gun violence epidemics in five cities and all.

He needs reverse race-baiting to remain out of this thread, too.

dred, Dylann burning flag.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2018 at 5:46 AM, dogballs Tom said:
On 5/12/2018 at 8:58 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
Quote

 

Thursday, May 31, 2018, 7:30pm–9:08pm
at AMC Classic Centro Ybor 10
1600 East 8th Ave, Tampa, FL 33605  

 

 
We've got our tickets for that showing.
I haven't been to a theater in at least 15 years.

And it looks like I may not go.

My wife got an email saying that if they don't sell 40 more seats, the showing will be cancelled.

Interest in this subject outside of libertarian circles has been Eva Dent in this thread since 2010. All the libertarians I know up there have already bought tickets and I don't expect a surge of interest from Duopoly types, so it looks like I'll have to get Little Pink House on DVD or something.

Or something.

Since the Tampa/St. Pete area could not muster a few dozen people who wanted to see the film, I may now pursue a new option.

http://littlepinkhousemovie.com/action.html#header3-2p

Apparently, you can "stream" it. So I guess it might be time to learn what that actually means in practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my big tech achievements in life was to learn to set the clock on my VCR.

I haven't really advanced since then. We have a DVD player someplace, which I managed to use once. I don't stream, download, or even record shows, mostly because I never learned how. Well, I learned how, but then technology left me behind.

I want to watch Little Pink House but haven't ever watched a movie on a computer and don't wish to start. I want to watch it on my big TV.

Hmmm. I have a link. I have a TV. I feel like a cave man who has found an iPhone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2018 at 7:18 AM, dogballs Tom said:

I made an effort to change the gossip to content ratio over in the asset forfeiture thread and noticed that the author of the article I posted has written a book on the topic case.

I haven't read it but might have to just because I love the title:

The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain.

If this isn't the cover art, it should be.

GraspingHand.jpg?h=612&w=500

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 6:21 AM, dogballs Tom said:

The Crony In Chief Wants to Militarize Eminent Domain

Quote

As explained, "[Lawsuits are] not going to hold [the wall] up because under the military version of eminent domain and under, actually, homeland security we can do it before we even start."

 

Sorry, forgot to apologize for the Koch-$pon$ored TeamR propaganda and my endless cheerleading for the Crony in Chief. My bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I guess another confession is in order, from some propaganda I posted in another thread.

Quote

There is one notable exception to the administration's otherwise troubling record on property rights: the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Gorsuch, it turns out, is a strong critic of Kelo v. City of New London, the dubious 2005 decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that the government can take private property and transfer it to another private party in order to promote "economic development." The appointment is especially notable, given that Trump himself is a longstanding enthusiastic defender of Kelo. I suspect that Gorsuch got through in part because Trump simply did not know about his views on Kelo at the time he was appointed, and in part because the president has largely outsourced judicial selection to more conventional conservatives, most of whom do not share the president's views on this issue.

And together with the end note on the article:

Quote

NOTE: I should perhaps mention that the account of the administration's decision to oppose property rights in Murr v. Wisconsin, despite requests to the contrary by conservative property rights advocates, is based on my personal knowledge of the development of the case, in which I authored an amicus brief on behalf of nine state governments that supported the property owners. However, the views expressed in this post are purely my own and don't necessarily reflect those of my clients in that matter.

It's exactly as Jocal has outlined, as I guess we should now admit. Meddlesome libertarians who would have liked to have seen Kelo win over Pfizer have not stopped interfering with American justice, and have even snuck a Kelo supporter past the vigilant Donald Trump.

I apologize once again for my elk and for my participation in this tragedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it that whether I ask a Dog

On 1/10/2019 at 7:49 AM, dogballs Tom said:
On 1/10/2019 at 7:38 AM, Dog said:

I don't like it.

...

By the way, do you agree with Trump about this?

On 8/26/2015 at 3:02 AM, dogballs Tom said:

The Donald on Kelo vs New London

 

Quote
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.

 

Or a hasher

18 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:
20 hours ago, hasher said:
On 1/7/2019 at 6:33 AM, dacapo said:

i thought about this the other day...if I were a land owner, i'd sure as hell sue the federal gumment all the way to the Supreme Court...

Writing as a lawyer, your time and money is better spent on sailing.  I hate to take money for things that won't help.  Can't sue city hall and all that...

You can sue the New London Development Corp and all that. Good chance you'll lose, but you can.

Writing as a lawyer, what did you think when those silly libertarians tried it in the Kelo case? Do you agree with the majority conclusion in that case?


Kelo is always a conversation stopper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Kelo is always a conversation stopper?

Transferring property is not unconstitutional.  Doing it without compensation is.  We build freeways through private property and if the property owner isn't satisfied with the price and he sues and a trial can be had.  Philadelphia had a world class water system.  Wealthy people bought the land around the reservoir and inhibited the growth of the water supply.  The population grew and without an ability to expand, the city suffered.  Taking land is not always a bad thing. 

I am in no way in favor of the wall and I do believe property owners will delay the implementation if the don ever gets the government of Mexico to pay for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, hasher said:

Transferring property is not unconstitutional.  Doing it without compensation is.  We build freeways through private property and if the property owner isn't satisfied with the price and he sues and a trial can be had.  Philadelphia had a world class water system.  Wealthy people bought the land around the reservoir and inhibited the growth of the water supply.  The population grew and without an ability to expand, the city suffered.  Taking land is not always a bad thing. 

That's true and no one has questioned the use of eminent domain for a road.

I think it's legitimate for a wall or other border facilities too. At least, the non-military version.

But the Kelo case wasn't about those things. It was about the "public use" of increased tax revenue from the New London Development Corporation's project, which struck some on the court as a bit different from a road.

Writing as a lawyer, what did you think when those silly libertarians tried suing the development corp in the Kelo case? Do you agree with the majority conclusion in that case? Or perhaps a dissent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogballs Tom said:

Writing as a lawyer, what did you think when those silly libertarians tried suing the development corp in the Kelo case? Do you agree with the majority conclusion in that case? Or perhaps a dissent?

The law is quite specialized today.  I don't have any expertise in that area.  It appears the majority was in favor of the community benefits.  I have seen in Atlanta instances when private property owners degrade a larger community.  The politics sometimes force the private property owner to yield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, hasher said:

The law is quite specialized today.  I don't have any expertise in that area.  It appears the majority was in favor of the community benefits.  I have seen in Atlanta instances when private property owners degrade a larger community.  The politics sometimes force the private property owner to yield.

What a dodge -do you think it's appropriate for "property values" to force a politically-motivated sale or not? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

What a dodge -do you think it's appropriate for "property values" to force a politically-motivated sale or not? 

We have had houses that were under repair for many years or decades.  They had their building permits.  Most of us were quite tolerant.  In the end, they have moved on.

My original hometown had strict codes.  Maintain your property or the city will tear it down.  Nothing bad to see there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hasher said:

We have had houses that were under repair for many years or decades.  They had their building permits.  Most of us were quite tolerant.  In the end, they have moved on.

My original hometown had strict codes.  Maintain your property or the city will tear it down.  Nothing bad to see there.

Tell me please, how that answers the question:  do you think it's appropriate for "property values" to force a politically-motivated sale or not?  Let me put it a different way:  In your opinion, In which general circumstances is the exercise of Eminent Domain appropriate? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

In your opinion, In which general circumstances is the exercise of Eminent Domain appropriate? 

Obviously for roads it would be proper.  There are many instances such as expanding the reservoir so the people would have means to a clean water supply.  In world war two most of the manufacturers went out of their business and into supplying the military.

The Declaration of Independence spoke to the pursuit of happiness.  The constitution changed that to property.

Private property is important.  You can't come over without my permission.  Private property can become an obscenity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, hasher said:

Obviously for roads it would be proper.  There are many instances such as expanding the reservoir so the people would have means to a clean water supply.  In world war two most of the manufacturers went out of their business and into supplying the military.

The Declaration of Independence spoke to the pursuit of happiness.  The constitution changed that to property.

Private property is important.  You can't come over without my permission.  Private property can become an obscenity. 

OK - then as it pertains to Kelo, or the taking of property to boost tax revenues, do you think that that's appropriate? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

OK - then as it pertains to Kelo, or the taking of property to boost tax revenues, do you think that that's appropriate? 

Yes.  It is a political decision.  In a free society you can overrule the deciders with a vote.  I get the fact that someone got butt hurt.  Do you see that happening often in your community?  I don't.  I see people mostly living free lives, improving their lives and enjoying their friends and family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, hasher said:

Yes.  It is a political decision.  In a free society you can overrule the deciders with a vote.  I get the fact that someone got butt hurt.  Do you see that happening often in your community?  I don't.  I see people mostly living free lives, improving their lives and enjoying their friends and family.

I would suggest that there are some things that are almost absolute - the government can't take your life w/out just cause, and that same standard should apply to personal property rights as well.  So - a political taking for a questionable "common benefit" is something that I think exceeds the intended use of eminent domain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I would suggest that there are some things that are almost absolute - the government can't take your life w/out just cause, and that same standard should apply to personal property rights as well.  So - a political taking for a questionable "common benefit" is something that I think exceeds the intended use of eminent domain. 

I know many folks in prison.  Some I sent, some I defended.  The government can take your life if the jury says OK.  You may not like it, but usually the jury gets it right, certainly not always.

If you own a little property that's good on you.  If you respect your neighbors, they will probably respect you.  If you want to do something with your property that neighbors oppose, expect a shit fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hasher said:

I know many folks in prison.  Some I sent, some I defended.  The government can take your life if the jury says OK.  You may not like it, but usually the jury gets it right, certainly not always.

If you own a little property that's good on you.  If you respect your neighbors, they will probably respect you.  If you want to do something with your property that neighbors oppose, expect a shit fight.

And that's kinda the point, isn't it?  The government isn't going to take your life via imprisonment/death penalty if you haven't been convicted of a capital crime.  As with the taking of private property, If you're not in violation of any established ordnance in the use of your private property, what your neighbors or anyone else thinks doesn't matter.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites