Kelo v. City of New London,

jocal505

moderate, informed gunowner
14,115
254
Seattle, Wa
In Tom's case, I have found that the subjects he is silent about are revealing. He dare not go certain places.

The moral outcome of gun acceptance is one Tom void. The libertarian signature on Heller fever is another.

A third silence, after Tom's lies were exposed, covers the ban on gun violence research.

The scholars who supported the Scalia decision were never identified by Tom,

The REAL Publius and his militia reported to "the government," but Tom dares not discuss similar authority over his own type of wanker militia.

Tom needs to stay silent on certain subjects, yes. But each silence means something. Something deceptive or inconsistent.

These silences mean things which I can probably articulate.
Why don't you show how much better you are and tell us what you think of Kelo v New London?

Did Stevens get it right by giving Kelo's home to Pfizer?
The discussion I was involved in was your silences, and what they might mean, not your chosen topics. You need to control discussions within your bag of tricks. Your MO is to answer questions with questions...which lead back to your bag of tricks...

You do fine within your chosen topics, and while you may have something to offer, what intrigues me is where you will not go (AND WHY you can't go there).

Here are a few other times I find you silent.

--One is after major court losses in gun matters. (You get chatty, start threads about the wrong subjects)

--The Charleston shootings silenced your racial edginess for a few weeks.

--The Dallas police assassinations silenced your police bashing for a few weeks.

Discuss Kelo, eh? You need to discuss a growing list of key topics which you have dodged:

--the moral implications of the impact of guns in the USA,

--the libertarian responsibility for gun mayhem

--how Gura's libertarian gun nonsense is now failing in the higher courts

--how Heller effectively collapsed

--who Scalia's scholars were, and

--how you joined the violent culture and tribe of Larry Pratt .
I find that the libertarian slant, in general, needs to be taken in context.

Tell us how Kelo fits into the grand plan of the Koch Brothers' Oligarchy.

And how it relates to the fine principles of Citizens United.

Tom, you have twisted so many words and facts, I don't trust whatever Kelo is, because you support it.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed gunowner
14,115
254
Seattle, Wa
Tom's policies don't happen in a vacuum. Some accountability for them is warranted.

The extension of libertarian policy is outrageous. It's background with the Koch Bros is scary. Know much about ALEC?

Tom insists he's a messenger. Okay, messenger for whom? And what is their broad policy layout?

Are their gaps in their overall policy which can't be discussed? Why?

If Tom is a solo type libertarian, how does he explain his elk?

Tom is full of strong viewpoints on guns in our society, He advocates for them on our forums, so he needs to defend their consequences. Tom could help us navigate his philosophy, which seems to generally align with Larry Pratt...which is a concern.

Tom is a classic gun apologist--his moves, logic, and rhetroic originated with Pratt. Pratt is the tree and darned if Tom isn't the apple.

Unless Tom says otherwise.

Where does Mr. Ray draw the line with the freewheeling Koch Brothers and their ALEC (lead by Robert Levy, the mastermind behind Heller)?

BTW, I'm looking for links on the mid-seventies revision of insurrectionist interpretation. Have any? I smell this crowd's involvement.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Super Anarchist
60,963
1,625
Punta Gorda FL
...

Tom, you have twisted so many words and facts, I don't trust whatever Kelo is, because you support it.
Kelo is a woman who had her home taken and given to Pfizer. The property is now a vacant lot.

If you had the slightest interest you would know that and you would know that I oppose it.

I assume my opposition makes you a supporter of taking property from individuals and giving it to developers?

 

jocal505

moderate, informed gunowner
14,115
254
Seattle, Wa
You answered a question with a question, without answering the question.

Chill. Tell us a little more about yourself.

You need to discuss a growing list of key topics which you have dodged:

--the moral implications of the impact of guns in the USA,

--the libertarian responsibility for gun mayhem
--how Gura's libertarian gun nonsense is now failing in the higher courts
--how Heller effectively collapsed
--who Scalia's scholars were, and
--how you joined the violent culture and tribe of Larry Pratt .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Super Anarchist
60,963
1,625
Punta Gorda FL
Eminent Domain Case Leads to Flag Desecration Case

Homer Martz, a 63-year-old U.S. Army veteran from Iowa, was unhappy about the oil pipeline being built on his property by a private company which had been granted access to the land through eminent domain. Among Martz's concerns were the risk the pipeline presents to his water supply and the fact that the pipeline could have been placed — much less disruptively, a few hundred feet away from its current path — where it wouldn't disturb anyone's home or water supply.

So he decided to protest this public-private intrusion into his home by hanging a U.S. flag upside down.

Then the police arrived.


Martz told The Messenger that two members of the sheriff's department showed up at his door last week holding his flags and informed him that he was in violation of an Iowa state statute banning "flag desecration," a misdemeanor punishable by up to 30 days in jail. Defiantly, Martz walked past the officers and hung the flag upside down once more. He was promptly arrested.
Their case was tossed because the judge and prosecutor knew that "the statute was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in 2014, and though Iowa prosecutors had been admonished not to enforce it..."

It does bring up an interesting point about eminent domain, and one in which I have a personal interest. I was recently talking to a water bureaucrat about running a pipeline across my mother's property next door to mine. I basically told him that we would not have a problem with it if compensated adequately. My neighbor had a similar conversation but told them he'd fight having the pipeline across his land, where they want to put it in a pretty stupid place.

There was recently a public meeting about this. I didn't go. He did. He reports that his property is one of the three finalist candidates for routing. They've dropped the idea of going across my mother's property.

The point, as it relates to the topic of this thread, is that guns are bad. No, wait, that's jocal's point with respect to guns other than his own in this and every other thread.

My point is that running water supply pipelines seems a reasonable use of eminent domain despite violating the test I set out in post 107: "the public" doesn't directly use a pipeline.

Of course, Keystone = Kelo + Fuel so the next question becomes: is a fuel company more or less the same as a regional water authority?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Regatta Dog

Super Anarchist
24,319
122
Eminent Domain Case Leads to Flag Desecration Case

Homer Martz, a 63-year-old U.S. Army veteran from Iowa, was unhappy about the oil pipeline being built on his property by a private company which had been granted access to the land through eminent domain. Among Martz's concerns were the risk the pipeline presents to his water supply and the fact that the pipeline could have been placed — much less disruptively, a few hundred feet away from its current path — where it wouldn't disturb anyone's home or water supply.

So he decided to protest this public-private intrusion into his home by hanging a U.S. flag upside down.

Then the police arrived.


Martz told The Messenger that two members of the sheriff's department showed up at his door last week holding his flags and informed him that he was in violation of an Iowa state statute banning "flag desecration," a misdemeanor punishable by up to 30 days in jail. Defiantly, Martz walked past the officers and hung the flag upside down once more. He was promptly arrested.
Their case was tossed because the judge and prosecutor knew that "the statute was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in 2014, and though Iowa prosecutors had been admonished not to enforce it..."

It does bring up an interesting point about eminent domain, and one in which I have a personal interest. I was recently talking to a water bureaucrat about running a pipeline across my mother's property next door to mine. I basically told him that we would not have a problem with it if compensated adequately. My neighbor had a similar conversation but told them he'd fight having the pipeline across his land, where they want to put it in a pretty stupid place.

There was recently a public meeting about this. I didn't go. He did. He reports that his property is one of the three finalist candidates for routing. They've dropped the idea of going across my mother's property.

The point, as it relates to the topic of this thread, is that guns are bad. No, wait, that's jocal's point with respect to guns other than his own in this and every other thread.

My point is that running water supply pipelines seems a reasonable use of eminent domain despite violating the test I set out in post 107: "the public" doesn't directly use a pipeline.

Of course, Keystone = Kelo + Fuel so the next question becomes: is a fuel company more or less the same as a regional water authority?
No.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Super Anarchist
60,963
1,625
Punta Gorda FL
Do you not see a difference between residential access of clean, potable water and fuel companies transporting their product? If not, why not?
The opinion of the court in the topic case muddies those waters a bit:

Not only was the “use by the public” test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as “public purpose.” See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 158—164 (1896). Thus, in a case upholding a mining company’s use of an aerial bucket line to transport ore over property it did not own, Justice Holmes’ opinion for the Court stressed “the inadequacy of use by the general public as a universal test.” Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U.S. 527, 531 (1906).9 We have repeatedly and consistently rejected that narrow test ever since.
Transporting a bucket of ore for profit seems pretty similar to transporting some fuel for profit.

If the bucket of ore served a public purpose, why not the fuel?

Just playing devil's advocate here, since no one seems to want to support the opinion of the court in this case. I've made clear my disdain for the public purpose test but it is part of our law, confirmed in Kelo v New London.

 

Bent Sailor

Super Anarchist
14,395
400
Lake Macquarie
Do you not see a difference between residential access of clean, potable water and fuel companies transporting their product? If not, why not?
The opinion of the court in the topic case muddies those waters a bit:
My question was directed at you, not the court. Just as Regatta Dog's answer was to you, not the court. Because your question was to us, not the court.

 

Bent Sailor

Super Anarchist
14,395
400
Lake Macquarie
Your question wasn't about the case. Your question was about the difference between a fuel company and regional water authority. You got an answer in that context. I asked my question in that context. Just because you want to talk about Favre doesn't mean every answer about football involved the guy.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed gunowner
14,115
254
Seattle, Wa
The Badgeless Questioner Posted Yesterday, 03:12 AM


Where is the answer I got? I missed it somehow?
Yeah, I run into the same thing, pretty frequently. From Post 113:

Pooplius needs to discuss a growing list of key topics which he has dodged:

--the moral implications of the impact of guns in the USA,

--the libertarian responsibility for gun mayhem

--how Gura's libertarian gun nonsense is now failing in the higher courts

--how Heller effectively collapsed

--who Scalia's scholars were, and

--how you joined the violent culture and tribe of Larry Pratt .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bent Sailor

Super Anarchist
14,395
400
Lake Macquarie
Where is the answer I got? I missed it somehow?
Yes, you missed it somehow.

You want to avoid discussion of Kelo vs New London, Bent? Why do you keep coming to this one?
You misunderstand. I don't have a problem Kelo vs New London. I simply have no interest in discussing it with you. You've proven, time & again, willing to misrepresent comments people make in transparent attempts to wangle a "gotcha" out of their opinion. I'm not interested in helping you with that. If you hadn't proven yourself such a dick over the years, that might not be the case.

I come to this thread for the same reason I read threads with Dabnis, Happy Jack, and NGS posting in them - other people less interested in being a twat often have comments worth reading - even if your tedious prattling is scattered throughout.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bent Sailor

Super Anarchist
14,395
400
Lake Macquarie
Can you provide a post number to help in my search for the answer I got?
Of course, Keystone = Kelo + Fuel so the next question becomes: is a fuel company more or less the same as a regional water authority?
No.
Anyone else, I would just assume they were really that stupid having replied to the post in question. You, on the other hand, prove time & again that such ignorance is wilful.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Super Anarchist
60,963
1,625
Punta Gorda FL
Can you provide a post number to help in my search for the answer I got?
Of course, Keystone = Kelo + Fuel so the next question becomes: is a fuel company more or less the same as a regional water authority?
No.
Anyone else, I would just assume they were really that stupid having replied to the post in question. You, on the other hand, prove time & again that such ignorance is wilful.
But that question has the name Kelo right in the sentence. I thought we were talking about a question outside the context of the topic case.

 
Top