A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, no. I'll try to find the article, but he made a big point, before he would accept the invitation, about what he would be representing. He was specifically NOT speaking for the school.

Mistake Number One, big time. You can't hold a top job in any major organization and just wake up and say, "I'm taking that hat off for a bit- forget I'm CEO of X."

There are people in the Bush administration who think about invading Iran. There should be, and there are under any administration. You've got to be up on all the possible scenarios.

But, the President does not stand up and say, "Let's think about invading Iran." He does not say, "Look, this isn't me talking as President, but me shooting the breeze with a bunch of Yahoos in Ohio; let's talk about invading I-ran." When you have a job like that, the questions you ask are important.

One of the big parts of Sommer's job is utilizing his bully pullpit in the best way. He didn't.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Sommer's

Unless you're consciously equating him to the seller of the Thigh Master (which might be appropriate), check your spelling.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, no. I'll try to find the article, but he made a big point, before he would accept the invitation, about what he would be representing. He was specifically NOT speaking for the school.

Just for the record, all statements made by me on this board are in my individual capacity and should not be imputed to my office of World Ruler.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I was responding to club with that post, not you.

I agree that eminent domain should be used sparingly, and I suspect that it is, because property is expensive, and government budgets are the subject of much, um, attention.

On your Tom Seaver hypo, given your premises, I disagree: the government should be able to force you to do it, but must compensate you for it. I want to fight the premise that there is a public benefit, but it's your hypo. And I tend to think that any minimal public benefit will not exceed the government's cost to compensate you, suggesting that a rational government will not do that sort of thing.

Suppose that the government wants to have rail service between Middletown and Murphysville, and there's no rail line there now. In fact, all the property on the possible routes is owned by a variety of private parties. Suppose that the value of having a rail link is clear -- it's too short for air service, the roads are jammed, etc. And suppose that the government concludes that the most efficient way to get this line built and running is to let private companies bid to build, own and operate it. Is exercising the power of eminent domain in this case not permitted because the government is going to sell the land to a private party? Does the Constitution require the government to own and/or operate the rail line itself to get this done? Because that seems a little odd, and it seems particularly odd that anti-government, pro-privatization advocates like club would by the people forcing this principle on us.

Rail hypo is easy: If there is a determination that we need a public route for access between two towns, that is exactly the sort of public need that eminent domain was intended to ease. Now, as long as the rail route is going to be available as a public accomodation (yes, for cost), I view it as a public benefit. If you were to tell me that we would permit the railroad to enter into arrangements to agree to only transport Company Y's materials, and to refuse transport to Company X, or that the railroad could decide to exclude all Scandanavians, then I would no longer agree.

But why do you want the government to have my Tom Seaver card? They can go on e-bay any day and buy a Tom Seaver card -- why should they get mine.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
For the liberal geeks among us:


Bumper sticker seen today on the hippie-dippie streets of Venice Beach:

FRODO FAILED
BUSH HAS THE RING


Unsurprisingly, its bearer* was a dirty, white VW Vanagon with vanity plates reading "SMEEGOL."

Carry on.





*The bumper sticker's, that is.

As a Republican and a Bush supporter I still have to admit that is the funniest Bumper Sticker I have heard of in years. Classic.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Unless you're consciously equating him to the seller of the Thigh Master (which might be appropriate), check your spelling.

It's good to have you around, especially since dtb became scarce.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
Bush reporter

That's Ty's job- if you count tabloid work as reporting.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
It really is. those are the words that have become the trigger words, but I don't think they really work well. What is at issue is the idea that it should be really, really hard for our government to take something away from me. Government should have to meet an incredibly high burden in order to do so, a burden that almost amounts to "we, the entire community, must absolutely have this in order to maintain our way of life, and there is no other way to do this without John's back yard." But, "need" and "benefit" fit into court opinions better than all of that.

We didn't "need" to build railroads. We didn't "need" to build schools. You almost never "need" to build something new, in a new place, in order "to maintain our way of life." I understand that you guys would rather that the Constitution not permit governments to act by eminent domain in any but the most improbable case, but that is not and never has been what the constitution says. What we have here is an incipient case of conservative judicial activism.

I think that this concept was historically "found" in the Constitution, and it is only more recent caselaw that has allowed the takings to expand in scope and ease.

Shall we return to Justice Scalia's favorite place, the plain language of the Constitution? "No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Perhaps you guys should propose an amendment so that it reads, "....and unless needed to maintain the American way of life."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We didn't "need" to build railroads. We didn't "need" to build schools. You almost never "need" to build something new, in a new place, in order "to maintain our way of life." I understand that you guys would rather that the Constitution not permit governments to act by eminent domain in any but the most improbable case, but that is not and never has been what the constitution says. What we have here is an incipient case of conservative judicial activism.



I think that this concept was historically "found" in the Constitution, and it is only more recent caselaw that has allowed the takings to expand in scope and ease.

But is this a limited right? Can the government say, "Ty, you are smart. We want your sperm so women will stop going down to the Sperm-mart and buying Hank's. [Insert Holmes Quote Here.] Here's $20."

Will you then have no recourse?

[Replaced_Texan]

Attorney General Phill Kline is seeking the complete medical records of nearly 90 women who received late-term abortions to search for evidence of crimes, according to court documents. . . . The records would include the patient’s name, medical history, details of her sex life, birth control practices and psychological profile. The clinics, which say nearly 90 women would be affected, are offering to provide records with some key information, including names, edited out.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Attorney General Phill Kline is seeking the complete medical records of nearly 90 women who received late-term abortions to search for evidence of crimes, according to court documents. . . . The records would include the patient’s name, medical history, details of her sex life, birth control practices and psychological profile. The clinics, which say nearly 90 women would be affected, are offering to provide records with some key information, including names, edited out.

See, you can do this so the entire thing isn't underlined.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
But is this a limited right? Can the government say, "Ty, you are smart. We want your sperm so women will stop going down to the Sperm-mart and buying Hank's. [Insert Holmes Quote Here.] Here's $20."

Will you then have no recourse?

I don't know what you mean by a limited right. If I were defending myself in that instance, I would first hire Burger to try to get me a higher price. I would then hire you to try out the Fourth Amendment ("The right of the people to be be secure in their persons ... shall not be violated ....").

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Rail hypo is easy: If there is a determination that we need a public route for access between two towns, that is exactly the sort of public need that eminent domain was intended to ease. Now, as long as the rail route is going to be available as a public accomodation (yes, for cost), I view it as a public benefit. If you were to tell me that we would permit the railroad to enter into arrangements to agree to only transport Company Y's materials, and to refuse transport to Company X, or that the railroad could decide to exclude all Scandanavians, then I would no longer agree.

But why do you want the government to have my Tom Seaver card? They can go on e-bay any day and buy a Tom Seaver card -- why should they get mine.

As much as I hate to do it I have to agree with the dinasour. As long as you are being compensated for your property I think the power of eminent domain should be farreaching. In our society, only allowing emminent domain for really limited circumstances is unrealistic. Like the prior example, if a company is going to build a plant in the community but can only build it on a certain site, the government should be able to take it for the benefit of the community. You could have one insane person that could screw the entire community. On the legal side, you only have the right to be legally compensated for your property. You do not have a absolute right to hold onto it. Our legal system has a long tradition of making people "whole" again through monetary compensation. As for your Tom Seaver card, if the government can get one some where else, then no it should not be able to take it. But what if you were holding the last original copy of the Declaration of Independance. Shouldn't the government be able to take it.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
As much as I hate to do it I have to agree with the dinasour.

Wow. Spanky's been here -- what, a week? -- and already he regrets agreeing with you.

This land speed record beats even Hank, who became disillusioned only when he realized that "ball popper" didn't mean what he thought it meant.

Good work, Ty!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
But what if you were holding the last original copy of the Declaration of Independance. Shouldn't the government be able to take it.

If I were holding the last original, you should argue that it is actually government property. How did I get it? (By the way, is there more than one original of the Declaration?)