LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=681)

Penske_Account 06-29-2005 01:59 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I think that I'm jaded on the subject, since the goddamned development/contractors lobby here in Texas have made it so homeowners associations can circumvent homestead laws and take people's houses away. The foreclosure process is a lot quicker if you don't pay your HOA fees than if you don't pay your taxes. Tex. Prop. Code 201-209.
HOAs are tyrannical. Personally, you couldn't pay me enough to buy into one. Assuming you are in one, now may be the time to start exercising your 2nd Amendment rights.

sebastian_dangerfield 06-29-2005 02:10 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Puh-leeeze! Putting aside the rhetoric (which both parties engage in, eg. Dean, Carville and Begala are the functional equivalents of Rove), dividing the myraid of issues into an either/or (Dem or Rep) is impossible. Unless you are brain-dead doctinairian.
Uh, 3.

Penske_Account 06-29-2005 02:13 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Uh, 3.
original whiff, no?

eta: more seriously, i don'get it, unless you are referencing a third party, of which I know none with any effective viability

Shape Shifter 06-29-2005 02:18 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Puh-leeeze! Putting aside the rhetoric (which both parties engage in, eg. Dean, Carville and Begala are the functional equivalents of Rove), dividing the myraid of issues into an either/or (Dem or Rep) is impossible. Unless you are brain-dead doctinairian.
If it was just rhetoric, that would be one thing. But they keep passing laws and shit.

Tyrone Slothrop 06-29-2005 02:21 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Within the next 6 months, expect the following:

2) The Reps to go "nuclear" on the Dems illegal fillibuster tactics, especially after they broke the "compromise" less than 28 hours later by refusing a vote on Bolton;
C'mon Slave -- you're smarter than this. The filibuster is provided for in the Senate rules, so it's not illegal. GOP hacks have newly discovered that this long-standing rule is unconstitutional, but no one thinks it's illegal. And the filibuster compromise was about judicial nominees, not Bolton. Even Republicans agree in principle that a filibuster is proper to try to get documents concerning the nominee in question. (What's unclear is why the White House is refusing to hand over the documents -- there must be something awful in them.)

Penske_Account 06-29-2005 02:25 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
If it was just rhetoric, that would be one thing. But they keep passing laws and shit.
This proves my point. there are myriad of issues, both sides stake claims. I don't agree with any one sides' claims on all issues. The general philosophy of the Rep side is supposed to be pro-biz, pro-capitalism and markets, anti-gov't regulation. I agree with that. The article you cites shows my side being inconsistent. I disagree with the Rep position here, however, if I choose to take the time I am sure I could come up with at least one example of Dem sponsored/supported regulatory legislation I disagree with. So we are back to square one, I don't see how anyone can wedge a positions on a myriad of issues into an either/or choice.

Shape Shifter 06-29-2005 02:29 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
This proves my point. there are myriad of issues, both sides stake claims. I don't agree with any one sides' claims on all issues. The general philosophy of the Rep side is supposed to be pro-biz, pro-capitalism and markets, anti-gov't regulation. I agree with that. The article you cites shows my side being inconsistent. I disagree with the Rep position here, however, if I choose to take the time I am sure I could come up with at least one example of Dem sponsored/supported regulatory legislation I disagree with. So we are back to square one, I don't see how anyone can wedge a positions on a myriad of issues into an either/or choice.
Sure you can, but you're blind if you don't see the overall trend.

Penske_Account 06-29-2005 02:31 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Sure you can, but you're blind if you don't see the overall trend.
Uncool. I thought you were classier than that.

Sidd Finch 06-29-2005 02:42 PM

More on CAFTA
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050629/..._trade_studies



Once again, the Bush Admin sponsors a report, then suppresses it because the findings are unfavorable to Bush policies.

Penske_Account 06-29-2005 02:56 PM

More on CAFTA
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050629/..._trade_studies



Once again, the Bush Admin sponsors a report, then suppresses it because the findings are unfavorable to Bush policies.
Makes sense to me. I think the implicit message is "hey Dems, STFU, trading with these guys is in our interest and who cares about their worker conditions or labor laws, if you don't like it, don't buy the products in your local WalMart. And SFTU"

Works for me. For example, I hate the French government and find their people unhygienic boorish idiots, however they make good wine and cheese and there is no reason I should deny myself those pleasures, even if they are pocketing the dough. If I only traded my money or services with people who I like or approve of....I would be living the life of the unibomber. Without the bombs.

Tyrone Slothrop 06-29-2005 02:57 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I personally don't think that the proposed condemnations are for "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, but abandonment of federalism couldn't possibly be argued in this decision.
Because you don't think economic redevelopment is a "public use," or because you don't think much of this particular project?

Replaced_Texan 06-29-2005 02:57 PM

Why Republicans should support abortion,
 
by Henry C. Smith
Quote:

According to Henry C. Smith, it one of the greatest ironies of our day that the very practice which religious conservatives have so fiercely opposed, has in the end, helped their cause, and this same practice, which the humanists, liberals, and feminists have been fighting so hard to protect, is destroying their political base.

Smith points out that since abortion was made legal, roughly one quarter of the thirty and under generation has been "exterminated" and argues that for every three children in our society today, there should have been a fourth, if it were not for abortion.

Since conservatives in general, and religious conservatives in particular, do not approve of abortion, he reasons that the bulk of these dead children would have come from liberal homes, and probably would have become liberals themselves.

Sidd Finch 06-29-2005 02:58 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I would think that you would take the view that as long as the owners are justly compensated, the government should have the right to take the property, because we as a society all benefit, directly or indirectly, from the services government provides and those services need to be paid for.

Nope. I'm not a communist. I think any taking should be extremely limited, and I would not use a rational basis test for it. And no, I don't think taking and taxation have very much to do with each other.

Though, as I think I've said, I cannot claim to be enough of a constitutional law scholar to say whether that is a correct analysis of the development of con law over the centuries -- hence my "is that what the Constitution means?" reaction.

I really do wonder, though, why the typical Slave/federalist response -- if you don't like the takings law in one state, live in another -- approach doesn't apply. If it applies to personal liberties -- which I believe are at least as important as property rights, and really what the Bill of Rights was directed at -- why wouldn't it apply to property rights? Isn't that what federalism is really all about?

Tyrone Slothrop 06-29-2005 02:59 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Wow! There's actually hope.
Am I the only person on the board who thinks Kelo was rightly decided?

Penske_Account 06-29-2005 03:03 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Am I the only person on the board who thinks Kelo was rightly decided?
Yes.

Tyrone Slothrop 06-29-2005 03:05 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I think any taking should be extremely limited, and I would not use a rational basis test for it.
I understand why one might mistrust legislative bodies in these situations, but there's really no reason to think that courts will do a good job of deciding on the merits of (e.g.) an economic redevelopment scheme or the engineering design of a highway. Legislatures do these things better.

A superior way, IMHO, to correct the incentives, would be to legislate that property owners are compensated at 125% (or 133%, or 150%) of fair market value.

Sexual Harassment Panda 06-29-2005 03:10 PM

More on CAFTA
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
".. if you don't like it, don't buy the products in your local WalMart."
I for one don't. I will drive any distance, pay any price, to avoid having one red cent of my money funneled to Sam Walton's evil empire.

sebastian_dangerfield 06-29-2005 03:11 PM

Why Republicans should support abortion,
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
by Henry C. Smith
Imagine the party the pill's prevented. Holy Lord, it would be rampant sex in the streets (most of it from behind). Man on dog, dog on cat, public masturbation and widespread marijuana and cocaine drenched depravity. The kids would be drinking wine and petting each other all over every open stretch of sidewalk... Sodom. Would. Blush.

Clearly not what Jesus envisioned...

Thus proving that Jesus favored abortion. And the circle is complete.

Penske_Account 06-29-2005 03:55 PM

More on CAFTA
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I for one don't. I will drive any distance, pay any price, to avoid having one red cent of my money funneled to Sam Walton's evil empire.
2. I guess there is some common ground between all of us. Ebony and ivory, live together in perfect harmony......................

Shape Shifter 06-29-2005 03:57 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Am I the only person on the board who thinks Kelo was rightly decided?
I'm completely familiar with Takings Clause jurisprudence other than the 30 minutes or so we spent on it in Con Law. I have no idea whether or not it was correctly decided, I just find the result distasteful.

Shape Shifter 06-29-2005 03:58 PM

More on CAFTA
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I for one don't. I will drive any distance, pay any price, to avoid having one red cent of my money funneled to Sam Walton's evil empire.
The Saudis thank you.

Tyrone Slothrop 06-29-2005 04:01 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I'm completely familiar with Takings Clause jurisprudence other than the 30 minutes or so we spent on it in Con Law. I have no idea whether or not it was correctly decided, I just find the result distasteful.
How come? The rationale of people on this board seems to be that it's OK for the government to seize land to build a road if the government owns and operates the road, but not if the government wants to let a private entity own and operate a toll road. Odd that club and Penske find that so distasteful.

Sexual Harassment Panda 06-29-2005 04:06 PM

Support Operation Yellow Elephant!
 
Wanna be a college Young Republican? You'll get to drink beer, eat meat, play stupid pranks on liberal college professors, support George Bush and the war, but under no circumstances should you be expected to enlist, pick up a gun and fight in that war.
  • In interviews, more than a dozen conventiongoers explained why it is important that they stay on campus while other, less fortunate people their age wage a bloody war in Iraq. They strongly support the war, they told me, but they also want to enjoy college life and pursue interesting careers. Being a College Republican allows them to do both. It is warfare by other, much safer means.

    <snip>

    I chatted for a while with Collin Kelley, a senior at Washington State with a vague resemblance to the studly actor Orlando Bloom. Kelley told me he's "sick and tired of people saying our troops are dying in vain" and added, "This isn't an invasion of Iraq, it's a liberation--as David Horowitz said." When I asked him why he was staying on campus rather than fighting the good fight, he rubbed his shoulder and described a nagging football injury from high school. Plus, his parents didn't want him to go. "They're old hippies," Kelley said.

    Munching on a chicken quesadilla at a table nearby was Edward Hauser, a senior at St. Edwards University in Austin, Texas--a liberal school in a liberal town in the ultimate red state of Texas. "Austin is ninety square miles insulated from reality," Hauser said. When I broached the issue of Iraq, he replied, "I support our country. I support our troops." So why isn't he there?

    "I know that I'm going to be better staying here and working to convince people why we're there [in Iraq]," Hauser explained, pausing in thought. "I'm a fighter, but with words."

    At a table by the buffet was Justin Palmer, vice chairman of the Georgia Association of College Republicans, America's largest chapter of College Republicans. In 1984 the group gained prominence in conservative circles when its chairman, Ralph Reed, formed a political action committee credited with helping to re-elect Senator Jesse Helms. Palmer's future as a right-wing operative looked bright; he batted away my question about his decision to avoid fighting the war he supported with the closest thing I heard to a talking point all afternoon. "The country is like a body," Palmer explained, "and each part of the body has a different function. Certain people do certain things better than others." He said his "function" was planning a "Support Our Troops" day on campus this year in which students honored military recruiters from all four branches of the service.

    Standing by Palmer's side and sipping a glass of rose wine, University of Georgia Republican member Kiera Ranke said she played her part as well. She and her sorority sisters sent care packages to troops in Iraq along with letters and pictures of themselves. "They wrote back and told us we boosted their morale," she said.

    By the time I encountered Cory Bray, a towering senior from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, the beer was flowing freely. "The people opposed to the war aren't putting their asses on the line," Bray boomed from beside the bar. Then why isn't he putting his ass on the line? "I'm not putting my ass on the line because I had the opportunity to go to the number-one business school in the country," he declared, his voice rising in defensive anger, "and I wasn't going to pass that up."

    And besides, being a College Republican is so much more fun than counterinsurgency warfare. Bray recounted the pride he and his buddies had felt walking through the center of campus last fall waving a giant American flag, wearing cowboy boots and hats with the letters B-U-S-H painted on their bare chests. "We're the big guys," he said. "We're the ones who stand up for what we believe in. The College Democrats just sit around talking about how much they hate Bush. We actually do shit."
http://www.tidmus.com/blog/images/yellow_small.jpg

Sexual Harassment Panda 06-29-2005 04:08 PM

More on CAFTA
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
The Saudis thank you.
They would, but they're pissed at me for driving a hybrid.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 06-29-2005 04:11 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Am I the only person on the board who thinks Kelo was rightly decided?
you've got part of me. It was rightly decided, in light of Midkiff. Midkiff, which I haven't considered since law school, is an abomination. Even more of one than Kelo. Pure transfer under the guise of "public use". If you can do that, there really are no limits to the takings clause.

Penske_Account 06-29-2005 04:12 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How come? The rationale of people on this board seems to be that it's OK for the government to seize land to build a road if the government owns and operates the road, but not if the government wants to let a private entity own and operate a toll road. Odd that club and Penske find that so distasteful.
Why?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 06-29-2005 04:12 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Even Republicans agree in principle that a filibuster is proper to try to get documents concerning the nominee in question. (What's unclear is why the White House is refusing to hand over the documents -- there must be something awful in them.)
I've been thinking about this, and I'm not certain. It's the obvious conclusion, and a sensible one. But there may be something more. I suspect that the documents won't help Bolto, but I expect that whatever they say, they will be used in as partisan a manner as anything and used to justify even further delay, without creating actual substantive objection. If that's the case, then there's no point in providing the docs, since the lines are already formed. Might as well push forward.

Shape Shifter 06-29-2005 04:15 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How come? The rationale of people on this board seems to be that it's OK for the government to seize land to build a road if the government owns and operates the road, but not if the government wants to let a private entity own and operate a toll road. Odd that club and Penske find that so distasteful.
I guess my view (as a matter of policy, not of law) is that takings should be severely limited. Your talking about massive disruption of many peoples' lives when you condemn a neighborhood. Also, FMV doesn't compensate for the emotional attachment people have for their homes, not to mention moving costs, etc. And I don't want the gov't taking my house to build the Monorail.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 06-29-2005 04:16 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How come? The rationale of people on this board seems to be that it's OK for the government to seize land to build a road if the government owns and operates the road, but not if the government wants to let a private entity own and operate a toll road. Odd that club and Penske find that so distasteful.
I think we've had this debate before. One good reason is that there's an inherent limit to how much of this the government can do if it continues to own and operate the property. If all it's doing is redistribution, there are no inherent limits.

Sidd Finch 06-29-2005 04:18 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I'm completely familiar with Takings Clause jurisprudence other than the 30 minutes or so we spent on it in Con Law. I have no idea whether or not it was correctly decided, I just find the result distasteful.


2.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 06-29-2005 04:18 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I guess my view (as a matter of policy, not of law) is that takings should be severely limited. Your talking about massive disruption of many peoples' lives when you condemn a neighborhood. Also, FMV doesn't compensate for the emotional attachment people have for their homes, not to mention moving costs, etc. And I don't want the gov't taking my house to build the Monorail.
Even if it's a genuine, bona fide, electrified, six-car monorail?

Tyrone Slothrop 06-29-2005 04:19 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
you've got part of me. It was rightly decided, in light of Midkiff. Midkiff, which I haven't considered since law school, is an abomination. Even more of one than Kelo. Pure transfer under the guise of "public use". If you can do that, there really are no limits to the takings clause.
I don't know that case, but I think the result in Kelo is the right one. It seems silly to say that a "public use" is only one where the government owns and manages the property going forward. Rational-basis review applies to other laws that legislatures pass. I agree that compensation may not suffice as a practical matter, so let's pass a law to hike it.

Tyrone Slothrop 06-29-2005 04:21 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Why?
There's no dispute that if the government wanted to seize the property at issue in order to build a road, or a government owned-building, there'd be no problem here. The thing that makes it controversial is that the government is taking the land in order to develop it through a private developer. If that's not permitted, then the Takings Clause bars the government from taking land to build a road if it intends to auction the land to a private entity to build and manage a toll road, but not if the government wants to build and manage the road itself.

Tyrone Slothrop 06-29-2005 04:24 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I've been thinking about this, and I'm not certain. It's the obvious conclusion, and a sensible one. But there may be something more. I suspect that the documents won't help Bolto, but I expect that whatever they say, they will be used in as partisan a manner as anything and used to justify even further delay, without creating actual substantive objection. If that's the case, then there's no point in providing the docs, since the lines are already formed. Might as well push forward.
Calling it partisan isn't quite right, since I don't think the filibuster would stand if it didn't have some GOP support. Moderate Republicans don't like Bolton, and the most damaging testimony against him came from Republicans.

I don't see how a filibuster could be sustained once the documents are forked over, after all that's been said.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 06-29-2005 04:28 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
[1]Calling it partisan isn't quite right, since I don't think the filibuster would stand if it didn't have some GOP support.[2] Moderate Republicans don't like Bolton, and the most damaging testimony against him came from Republicans.

I don't see how a filibuster could be sustained once the documents are forked over, after all that's been said.
1) You need to count the numbers

2) That's true, so he might not win a vote in the end. But was it damaging because of what it was, or because of who said it?

3) The support would be undermined, I agree. I'm speculating on motivation, but I would turn them over for the reason that it would undermine any opposition. But if I knew what I were talking about, I might be in the white house or on tv.

Tyrone Slothrop 06-29-2005 04:31 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I guess my view (as a matter of policy, not of law) is that takings should be severely limited. Your talking about massive disruption of many peoples' lives when you condemn a neighborhood. Also, FMV doesn't compensate for the emotional attachment people have for their homes, not to mention moving costs, etc. And I don't want the gov't taking my house to build the Monorail.
OK, but none of that goes to the particular issue in Kelo. If the decision had gone the other way, the government could still take your house to build the Monorail, but only if it was government-owned and operated. Penske will tell you that a privatized monorail would be better and cheaper (spree: sound). And the endowment effect tends to prevent government from taking people's property. I tend to agree that FMV isn't enough, but the remedy is to pass a law giving, e.g., 125% of FMV.

Tyrone Slothrop 06-29-2005 04:40 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
1) You need to count the numbers
You're right. I didn't mean what I said. I meant that there is significant GOP opposition to Bolton.

Quote:

2) That's true, so he might not win a vote in the end. But was it damaging because of what it was, or because of who said it?
Both. Had the criticism come from Democrats, it would have discounted. Also, there's behind-the-scenes opposition from key Republicans (e.g., Colin Powell).

Quote:

3) The support would be undermined, I agree. I'm speculating on motivation, but I would turn them over for the reason that it would undermine any opposition. But if I knew what I were talking about, I might be in the white house or on tv.
2.

Shape Shifter 06-29-2005 04:43 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK, but none of that goes to the particular issue in Kelo. If the decision had gone the other way, the government could still take your house to build the Monorail, but only if it was government-owned and operated. Penske will tell you that a privatized monorail would be better and cheaper (spree: sound). And the endowment effect tends to prevent government from taking people's property. I tend to agree that FMV isn't enough, but the remedy is to pass a law giving, e.g., 125% of FMV.
I think it gives too much power to private developers, who tend to dominate local governments already.

sebastian_dangerfield 06-29-2005 05:21 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I think it gives too much power to private developers, who tend to dominate local governments already.
Ever repped a developer? Lower life forms are hard to find.

Every scumbag developer from here to Alaska will now donate pissloads of cash to the local degenerates on the planning board to get the local govt to force a taking on some folks who don't want to sell a prime piece of land. The SCOTUS standard that the taking must be for local community betterment is easily met. Any scumbag planning board can decide a development is in the "community interest."

Excellent decision. Put the stupidest and most corrupt people on the planet in charge of deciding when private property may be taken.

This is what happens when idiots who've spent their lives in law books and never worked in reality get to decide such issues.

Replaced_Texan 06-29-2005 05:24 PM

More tyranny I like
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Because you don't think economic redevelopment is a "public use," or because you don't think much of this particular project?
This particular project bugs me, though having read the opinion, it seems consistent with prior SCOTUS rulings on the matter. There's something distasteful about tearing down someone's house to be Pfizer's parking lot.

ETA: I live in a recently regentrified neighborhood. I'm sure our tax base has gone up considerably in the last 20 years, and my yuppie ass being here doesn't help matters, but the neighborhood character is slowly eroding to the point that it's unrecognizable to long-time residents and lovely old homes are torn down on a regular basis to build expensive, modern, compact townhomes. The developers have it easy enough to make things into their own corporate image as it is without this decision.

OTOH, I was reading about plans in Freeport, Texas to build a marina on the Old Brazos River. Freeport, Texas is a cesspool with absolutely nothing to recommend it. They're trying to inject some life into the town, but what if it fails? It's certainly not guaranteed to be of any use to anyone to have empty hotels sitting on a waterfront that no one uses.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:46 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com