Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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."

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

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.)]

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]

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.)]

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]

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.)]

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]

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.