The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: To-Whose-Benefit? on June 24, 2017, 05:10:42 pm
-
dailycaller
Kevin Daley
Legal Affairs Reporter
6:11 PM 06/23/2017
[excerpt]
http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/23/supreme-court-limits-rights-of-property-owners/
The Supreme Court constrained the rights of property owners Friday, establishing a test that favors government officials in assessing the loss of property value caused by government regulations.
Writing for a 5-3 court, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that state and local officials can combine separate parcels of land in assessing whether local government has effectively seized private property through regulation, requiring compensation. Kennedy’s opinion was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts filed a fiery dissent, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
[this is known as a Major Clue]
The case concerned a Wisconsin family called the Murrs, who argued that the government has unconstitutionally taken their land by refusing to allow them to sell it.
“This is an unfortunate decision for the Murrs, and all property owners,” said John Groen, general counsel and vice president of the Pacific Legal Foundation, a public interest group that represented the family. “We are disappointed that the Court did not recognize the fundamental unfairness to the Murrs of having their separate properties combined, simply to avoid the protection of the takings clause.”
The Murr family owns two pieces of property on the St. Croix River in Wisconsin. They attempted to sell one of their waterfront lots (called “Lot E”) to finance improvements to a cabin they own on the second plot (called “Lot F”). The value of Lot E had been assessed at $400,000. Environmental officials blocked the sale for violating conservation rules. A county board further declared that state law required the two lots be merged into a single piece of property that could not be broken up and sold in smaller parcels.
-
SCOTUS rendered itself lawless and irrelevant when they 'made' ObamaCare lawful via redefining a 'tax' into a 'penalty'.
They have no longer possess any Authority I recognize. They are just agents of tyranny in black robes. That they would diminish the Takings Clause to be redefined should alarm us to the fact that similar treatments by their hand upon the First and Second Amendments are not far behind.
And they will continue to do so until for all matters of practicality - the Constitution itself is effectively nullified in total and D.C. becomes the only arbiter of what is lawful.
Which is where they intend to take us anyway.
-
A coven of black-robed witches.
-
SCOTUS rendered itself lawless and irrelevant when they 'made' ObamaCare lawful via redefining a 'tax' into a 'penalty'.
They have no longer possess any Authority I recognize. They are just agents of tyranny in black robes. That they would diminish the Takings Clause to be redefined should alarm us to the fact that similar treatments by their hand upon the First and Second Amendments are not far behind.
And they will continue to do so until for all matters of practicality - the Constitution itself is effectively nullified in total and D.C. becomes the only arbiter of what is lawful.
Which is where they intend to take us anyway.
You have that exactly backwards. Justice Roberts redefined the Democrats' penalty/fee (which is what the rats had been proclaiming it as) into a "tax"... which was the only way it could have been deemed legal or constitutional. He rewrote the law, essentially, with his god-like ruling.
-
SCOTUS rendered itself lawless and irrelevant when they 'made' ObamaCare lawful via redefining a 'tax' into a 'penalty'.
They have no longer possess any Authority I recognize. They are just agents of tyranny in black robes. That they would diminish the Takings Clause to be redefined should alarm us to the fact that similar treatments by their hand upon the First and Second Amendments are not far behind.
And they will continue to do so until for all matters of practicality - the Constitution itself is effectively nullified in total and D.C. becomes the only arbiter of what is lawful.
Which is where they intend to take us anyway.
Our Founders had a remedy for that malady. Human liberty is not for any government to grant or deny; only to protect or else, lose its rightful authority.
-
You have that exactly backwards. Justice Roberts redefined the Democrats' penalty/fee (which is what the rats had been proclaiming it as) into a "tax"... which was the only way it could have been deemed legal or constitutional. He rewrote the law, essentially, with his god-like ruling.
@INVAR
In the spirit of knowing what you meant I gave it a pass in favor of favoring your post.
-
SCOTUS rendered itself lawless and irrelevant when they 'made' ObamaCare lawful via redefining a 'tax' into a 'penalty'.
They have no longer possess any Authority I recognize. They are just agents of tyranny in black robes. That they would diminish the Takings Clause to be redefined should alarm us to the fact that similar treatments by their hand upon the First and Second Amendments are not far behind.
And they will continue to do so until for all matters of practicality - the Constitution itself is effectively nullified in total and D.C. becomes the only arbiter of what is lawful.
Which is where they intend to take us anyway.
I'm seeing rumors that Kennedy plans to retire soon. I hope he does.
-
SCOTUS rendered itself lawless and irrelevant when they 'made' ObamaCare lawful via redefining a 'tax' into a 'penalty'.
They have no longer possess any Authority I recognize. They are just agents of tyranny in black robes. That they would diminish the Takings Clause to be redefined should alarm us to the fact that similar treatments by their hand upon the First and Second Amendments are not far behind.
And they will continue to do so until for all matters of practicality - the Constitution itself is effectively nullified in total and D.C. becomes the only arbiter of what is lawful.
Which is where they intend to take us anyway.
Isn't there something you can take for your problem. Your post made some sense rendered moot by your fatalistic negativity.
-
Isn't there something you can take for your problem. Your post made some sense rendered moot by your fatalistic negativity.
If it comes down to armed insurrection the first thing to go should be the judiciary in this country.
I share @INVAR's fatalistic negativity.
-
Isn't there something you can take for your problem. Your post made some sense rendered moot by your fatalistic negativity.
Acknowledging where "they" (ie leftists) intend to or plan on dragging us isn't being negative, fatalistically or otherwise. It's being realistic.
But I get it that sometimes realists are called or deemed negative.... especially when the reality of who and what we in America are up against is so dire. But if we, as a nation of thinking (and voting) adults, don't acknowledge, recognize and face that reality of the threat we're facing from the radical left.... how can we ever hope to defeat it/them?
-
Acknowledging where "they" (ie leftists) intend to or plan on dragging us isn't being negative, fatalistically or otherwise. It's being realistic.
But I get it that sometimes realists are called or deemed negative.... especially when the reality of who and what we in America are up against is so dire. But if we, as a nation of thinking (and voting) adults, don't acknowledge, recognize and face that reality of the threat we're facing from the radical left.... how can we ever hope to defeat it/them?
I agree totally and I wanted to pass the current bill until I read some statements from Ted Cruz and realized he had a far better bill.
What I'm complaining about @INVAR is not his conservatism but his utter doom and gloom on every post he makes. He's already got me wanting to get back under the covers.
-
If it comes down to armed insurrection the first thing to go should be the judiciary in this country.
I share @INVAR's fatalistic negativity.
@INVAR should be a happy guy. Two people have defended him already. But he is not a happy guy because he knows the country is already so far down the road to socialism we can never come back.
I agree with a lot of his points but not with his 'what's the use' attitude. We need the judiciary scaled way back in power. I'm hoping Kennedy does retire and Trump appoints another conservative. But the Courts were never supposed to make law and they've been doing it since Roe v Wade.
-
I agree totally and I wanted to pass the current bill until I read some statements from Ted Cruz and realized he had a far better bill.
What I'm complaining about @INVAR is not his conservatism but his utter doom and gloom on every post he makes. He's already got me wanting to get back under the covers.
Maybe doom and gloom; but for the most part INVAR is correct. As for climbing back under the covers; nah... it's summertime. Enjoy the weather!
-
Maybe doom and gloom; but for the most part INVAR is correct. As for climbing back under the covers; nah... it's summertime. Enjoy the weather!
Never mind. I just realized that INvar is a god. Not with a capital G but a god nonetheless.
-
I agree totally and I wanted to pass the current bill until I read some statements from Ted Cruz and realized he had a far better bill.
What I'm complaining about @INVAR is not his conservatism but his utter doom and gloom on every post he makes. He's already got me wanting to get back under the covers.
While I fully recognize where he's coming from.... and he's not wrong re: the intentions of the radical left and the demonic enemy within..... I still trust that God will deal with them for now.
Do what I do. Take everything (literally) that is read on the internet (including here) with a huge grain of salt. Works every time it's tried. ^-^
-
You have that exactly backwards. Justice Roberts redefined the Democrats' penalty/fee (which is what the rats had been proclaiming it as) into a "tax"... which was the only way it could have been deemed legal or constitutional. He rewrote the law, essentially, with his god-like ruling.
My bad. I apparently was confusing the legal arguments about Roberts' absurd actions because redefining a penalty into a 'tax' was totally unConstitutional as ObamaCare originated in the Senate and all tax bills must originate in the House.
Your post made some sense rendered moot by your fatalistic negativity.
History is a great teacher that explicitly reminds us that all Republics turn corrupt and collapse in the same exact fashion and road we find ourselves on.
I cannot help it that you are so sensitive to the truth.
What I'm complaining about @INVAR is not his conservatism but his utter doom and gloom on every post he makes.
You continue to validate the exact depiction of a nation about to be judged in Isaiah 30:9-11. Someone has to cry aloud the warnings of the consequences of what we have done and are doing. There are enough cheerleaders screaming "Happy-Happy Joy-Joy!" to sate the Normalcy Bias much of the country is infected with.
..he is not a happy guy because he knows the country is already so far down the road to socialism we can never come back.
Point to me one Republic in human history that ever has come back once it abandoned it's foundations for Socialism or dictatorship.
Never mind. I just realized that INvar is a god. Not with a capital G but a god nonetheless.
I'm nothing of the sort, so why ascribe to me a blasphemy? Because you do not want to hear the truth?
-
My bad. I apparently was confusing the legal arguments about Roberts' absurd actions because redefining a penalty into a 'tax' was totally unConstitutional as ObamaCare originated in the Senate and all tax bills must originate in the House.
History is a great teacher that explicitly reminds us that all Republics turn corrupt and collapse in the same exact fashion and road we find ourselves on.
I cannot help it that you are so sensitive to the truth.
You continue to validate the exact depiction of a nation about to be judged in Isaiah 30:9-11. Someone has to cry aloud the warnings of the consequences of what we have done and are doing. There are enough cheerleaders screaming "Happy-Happy Joy-Joy!" to sate the Normalcy Bias much of the country is infected with.
Point to me one Republic in human history that ever has come back once it abandoned it's foundations for Socialism or dictatorship.
I'm nothing of the sort, so why ascribe to me a blasphemy? Because you do not want to hear the truth?
Hey, I spelled it with a little 'g' so I didn't ascribe blasphemy. But I'm thinking about it.
-
Hey, I spelled it with a little 'g' so I didn't ascribe blasphemy. But I'm thinking about it.
Maybe start drinking to assuage whatever this condition is that you suffer from over reading things that upset you.
-
SCOTUS rendered itself lawless and irrelevant when they 'made' ObamaCare lawful via redefining a 'tax' into a 'penalty'.
I don't have a problem with Roberts' Obamacare ruling. He essentially said that as a tax, it could not be challenged until the tax went into effect. But I have a huge problem that no one has challenged the constitutionality of that tax since it has gone into effect.
I firmly believe that if such a challenge made it back to the Supreme Court, Roberts would vote with Thomas, Alito, et al.
As for this current ruling, this is just a replay of Kelo. Kennedy sold out that time too. Can't wait until he retires.
-
Maybe start drinking to assuage whatever this condition is that you suffer from over reading things that upset you.
@INVAR
Sounds like a plan to me. I'm going to get a glass of wine.
-
Maybe start drinking to assuage whatever this condition is that you suffer from over reading things that upset you.
Is that what you do? Well, I don't, but thanx for the bad advice. I do not suffer fools lightly but they do not upset me. I would use the word irritate.
-
Maybe start drinking to assuage whatever this condition is that you suffer from over reading things that upset you.
Great advice, as usual @INVAR I couldn't readily ascribe to the idea that you are a negative kind of fellow, more like a Realist.
Your contributions here are well noted and always worth the read, Thanks.
(http://media.culturemap.com/crop/92/31/633x475/Devils-River-Whiskey_115728.jpg)
-
Great advice, as usual @INVAR I couldn't readily ascribe to the idea that you are a negative kind of fellow, more like a Realist.
Your contributions here are well noted and always worth the read, Thanks.
(http://media.culturemap.com/crop/92/31/633x475/Devils-River-Whiskey_115728.jpg)
@INVAR may be a realist to you, but to me, he's like that creature in the Harry Potter books who drained all hope and happiness from the world.
There's not enough booze to make me think his posts are in any way realistic of helpful.
-
@INVAR may be a realist to you, but to me, he's like that creature in the Harry Potter books who drained all hope and happiness from the world.
There's not enough booze to make me think his posts are in any way realistic of helpful.
You aren't seeing the full picture. I would bet @INVAR has many things in their life that fills them with hope and joy. Seeing how the three branches of the government, and a goodly half of the citizenry, are driving this country into the abyss of war, famine, moral turpitude, pestilence, and outright HATE, viewing THEM with anything less than fatalistic negativity is for to being pretty uninformed.
-
@INVAR may be a realist to you, but to me, he's like that creature in the Harry Potter books who drained all hope and happiness from the world.
There's not enough booze to make me think his posts are in any way realistic of helpful.
@Emjay as much as I love and respect your contributions here also, it's all relative and entirely based on our own unique Human experience/perspective.
-
@Emjay as much as I love and respect your contributions here also, it's all relative and entirely based on our own unique Human experience/perspective.
Thanks, @corbe. I'll try to be in a better mood tomorrow.
-
@INVAR may be a realist to you, but to me, he's like that creature in the Harry Potter books who drained all hope and happiness from the world.
There's not enough booze to make me think his posts are in any way realistic of helpful.
Well considering you don't want to hear anything biblical or too 'preachy' either, the real hope and happiness I have, is something you are disgusted with, ignore or find irritating.
So of course you would find nothing I post to be 'helpful'. You don't want to hear anything except smooth and easy things - just as Isaiah 30:9-11 describes.
-
You have that exactly backwards. Justice Roberts redefined the Democrats' penalty/fee (which is what the rats had been proclaiming it as) into a "tax"... which was the only way it could have been deemed legal or constitutional. He rewrote the law, essentially, with his god-like ruling.
Even then, he screwed up. The penalty clause was added by the Senate, and Revenue measures (aka: taxes) are Constitutionally required to originate in the House.
He trashed the Constitution twice to rule that the ACA was acceptable, and imho, lost all credibility as a jurist..
-
@INVAR may be a realist to you, but to me, he's like that creature in the Harry Potter books who drained all hope and happiness from the world.
There's not enough booze to make me think his posts are in any way realistic of helpful.
Perhaps if you recognized he has seen first hand the type of real-world cesspit this nation is headed for you would not be so smug, Emjay. That you refuse to note that as a warning is your personal folly.
He isn't draining anything, he is warning of what is and where that will lead. Taking potshots at the messenger doesn't change the reason for the message.
-
I don't have a problem with Roberts' Obamacare ruling. He essentially said that as a tax, it could not be challenged until the tax went into effect. But I have a huge problem that no one has challenged the constitutionality of that tax since it has gone into effect.
I firmly believe that if such a challenge made it back to the Supreme Court, Roberts would vote with Thomas, Alito, et al.
As for this current ruling, this is just a replay of Kelo. Kennedy sold out that time too. Can't wait until he retires.
As for this current ruling, I am disappointed that Grosuch did not cast a vote.
-
:beer:
Perhaps if you recognized he has seen first hand the type of real-world cesspit this nation is headed for you would not be so smug, Emjay. That you refuse to note that as a warning is your personal folly.
He isn't draining anything, he is warning of what is and where that will lead. Taking potshots at the messenger doesn't change the reason for the message.
:beer: Unfortunately, some people are in denial or are apathetic. That attitude of course does no good and for some it's easier to shoot the messenger than face the reality.
-
As for this current ruling, I am disappointed that Grosuch did not cast a vote.
Gorsuch recused himself because he was not present for opening arguments. It was the right call. It shows integrity on his part. Still waiting to see former ACLU leader Ruth Bader Ginsburg recuse herself from any case the ACLU brings forward.
-
Gorsuch recused himself because he was not present for opening arguments. It was the right call. It shows integrity on his part. Still waiting to see former ACLU leader Ruth Bader Ginsburg recuse herself from any case the ACLU brings forward.
Thanks for the info on Gorsuch.
-
SCOTUS rendered itself lawless and irrelevant when they 'made' ObamaCare lawful via redefining a 'tax' into a 'penalty'.
They have no longer possess any Authority I recognize. They are just agents of tyranny in black robes. That they would diminish the Takings Clause to be redefined should alarm us to the fact that similar treatments by their hand upon the First and Second Amendments are not far behind.
And they will continue to do so until for all matters of practicality - the Constitution itself is effectively nullified in total and D.C. becomes the only arbiter of what is lawful.
Which is where they intend to take us anyway.
The fatalistic discourse you promulgate makes this seem more appropriate to be in the comic book pages.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT1dRVONS4hqffNDBSQhk5lqNVvOjUC97njA913BQ-taINrcZM5eQ)
Negativity does nothing to change anything.
-
The fatalistic discourse you promulgate makes this seem more appropriate to be in the comic book pages.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT1dRVONS4hqffNDBSQhk5lqNVvOjUC97njA913BQ-taINrcZM5eQ)
If that is how you regard the lessons of history and prophetic warnings from the Founders and the bible.
Negativity does nothing to change anything.
Neither does wishful thinking in the face of reality.
-
Gorsuch recused himself because he was not present for opening arguments. It was the right call. It shows integrity on his part. Still waiting to see former ACLU leader Ruth Bader Ginsburg recuse herself from any case the ACLU brings forward.
She should step down. Period.