Somebody had a lot of fun coming up with this headline.

New Title
 

You are right. Freeing the slaves was for "public use." (Or disuse.) And, as much as you may dislike the idea, it was a taking of property under the Fifth Amendment as property was legally defined and accepted at the time.

Kelo is an abortion on the "public use" debate, but at least it affirmed that governments (and the morons who make up their city councils) have to pay just compensation for a taking, even as minimally described the Supes, and they should consider that fact and consequences when they act. See, e.g., http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../MNFETSC0H.DTL

New Title
 

Except when you cut through all the hooplah, the HMB case wasn't about eminent domain. It was really only an inverse condemnation claim, no different than if the city's storm sewers flooded your rumpus room. The only difference is that this particular rumpus room was worth $36.7MM, and that when you tried to pump the water out in order to save the foosball table, the California Coastal Commission tut-tutted and said that red-legged frogs had moved into your shag carpeting, so no dice, your rumpus room is now "habitat," and not in a good 1970s way.

In retrospect, the analogy wound up more tortured than I'd planned, but still.

8/10! And I didn't actually recognize anyone.

New Title
 

omission / commission. To use your tortured analogy, it is as if they knew the storm sewers were going to flood my rumpus room and went out and poked holes in the dykes. heh, heh, heh.

New Title
 

At the moment I tend to think Judge Walker got it right, but I think it's a stretch to go even further and say HMB created the wetlands intentionally. Even the property owner was surprised by their appearance, and you would assume he'd be paying attention to such things.

Minor point, but the wisdom about never attributing to malice etc. goes double for municipal DPWs.

GGG = BDS: Exhibit A
 

They're really stupid enough to see the difference between a sales pitch and his actual voting record? Or are they so ideological they can't abide getting the best Dem candidate into office by bullshitting Independent and moderate Republican swing voters?

My guess is the rabid left is most upset by Obama not because they think he'll be a centrist if elected, but because his election would prove the country is trending centrist. The Jesus crazies on the Right have always known they were a minority and would only get their views into the political debate by manipulating the political system. These idiot Lefties really believe there's a left-leaning "progressive" majority in the country. They actually think the country is turning quasi-socialist.

Peripherally related rant here:

The funniest thing about these soft socialists is that if they get enacted their current marquis issue, universal health care, it will draw the brightest line between haves and have nots in the history of the country. All the best talent in medicine will follow the market forces and service the people who can afford it.

In theory, I agree with universal health care, as a moral issue, but another more important moral issue - allowing docs to have freedom to practice where they want and control their economic destinies - trumps it. What is the Left going to do? Force docs to work for government money? Tell the insurers they can't offer insurance packages to those who can afford it to stop the insurers, well-off consumers and profit-oriented docs from developing a whole different tier of health care service which would suck up all the best talent in medicine? In the realm of services, particularly something like health care, collectivist = substandard. What the govt gives at C+ quality the private sector always delivers at an A level.*

And who will John Edwards sue? There isn't any universal health care coming without some sort of tort immunity or govt-backed slush fund which would pay out severely statutorily capped awards. And Uncle Sam's a bitch to litigate against. He gets extra time to answer complaints and motions and he has all those pesky sovereign immunity defenses.

*With the exception of Halliburton and Blackwater in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama frightens the Left???
 

Because it's likely a ruse.

M.I.A. Moron
 

Clicking through a few articles on Malkin's site - I can across this gem from last week:

LOL

GGG = BDS: Exhibit A
 

do any of you have any idea what actually happened in Ontario? for awhile people with bucks could hire better care THEN the governement outlawed it.

yes, once there is universal care they can say you can't pay for better care. Then the guy in Windsor having a heart attack will die, not unlike we'll be doing here.

but I'm sure the dems can blog cite stuff that says I'm stupid.

GGG = BDS: Exhibit A
 

Couple of points, then a question:

1. Canada's ban on private health insurance and fee for service medicine has since been ruled unconsitutional for obvious reasons.

2. For the same or similar reasons (I'm not a Canadian constitutional law scholar, but I'll make a wild assumption there), the US could never outlaw private fee for service care or private health insurance.*

3. Given the reality of #2, how is universal health care supposed to succeed in the face of so many market forces subverting its intent? Is the assumption good docs would run to big hospitals awash in more federal money? Is the govt supposed to be a much more willing payer than the insurance companies who pay nickles on the dollar to the hospitals? I'm honestly confused about how this universal health care system would do much more than bring substandard care to a shitload of people and push those with means into a fee for service or private insurance environment at a nice discount (insurers could probably service an economically well off risk pool at advantageous rates since the poor tend to have the most health crises and chronic illnesses).

*I think under the McCarran or McCann Ferguson Act or something like that states are the ultimate regulators of insurance so the Feds trying to grab the reins there would be a real mess.

GGG = BDS: Exhibit A
 

The MacCarran Ferrguson Act (I could be wrong about the spelling, but you know what I mean) is federal legislation. If the Congress decides to adopt universal health care coverage, and they decide to nationalize the health care system (which are two things that are not necessarily tied together), then presumably they would repeal the insurance act and bring health insurance within the scope of the Commerce Clause.

Of course, this is a vast oversimplification. There are also collateral issues like federalism and the 11th Amendment and state control over other types of insurance. But this, I think, should answer your basic question.

GGG = BDS: Exhibit A
 

Having had a pretty terrifying up close and personal experience with the state of the Canadian health care system over the holidays, I think you are absolutely spot-on here. Everyone should be covered, but doctors fees shouldn't be capped, or else there's no incentive for doctors to service areas of the country other than large urban centers.

GGG = BDS: Exhibit A
 

Ha. Not surprised I got my ass handed to me in the one case tried re: McCarran. Kinda helps if you can spell the legislation. Why did I quit law again?

Anyway, I hear you on the Federalism issues, but what about #3? How does our natl health system not become a second class health system without the outlawing of private insurance or fee for service care, which I think we can all agree is an impossible scenario since that would violate the Constitution?