Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

John Roberts: A Supreme Property Rights Disaster In The MakingMore Kelo on the SCOTUS horizon?...
Pacific Legal Foundation, ONe Republic Journal, Acton Institute, Enter Stage Right ^ | 8/15/05 | James S. Burling

Posted on 08/19/2005 8:41:48 PM PDT by FReethesheeples

A Supreme Property Rights Disaster In The Making More Kelo on the SCOTUS horizon?... [James S. Burling] 8/15/05

After a term marked by the Supreme Court’s utter contempt for property rights, those of us who happen to think there is something special about allowing old widows to keep their homes were not prepared for an even more bitter defeat. Yet, that is what President Bush handed us with the nomination of John Roberts.

The battle over property rights is not a conservative versus liberal thing. It’s more a struggle between those who believe in the power of the state to dictate how we get to use our land and homes versus those of us who believe that the state has no business destroying our right to make reasonable use of our property.

Guest Contributor James S. Burling James S. Burling is a Principal Attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation [go to Guest index]

That is because when government can go about destroying with impunity our ability to use property, none of our liberties can be safe.

As James Madison put it, “Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.”

This spring, the Court handed down a series of cases that stand for the proposition that today in America, no man (or widow) is safe.

In a case out of Hawaii, the Court held that courts had to defer to a legislative scheme to reduce gas prices by controlling the rents paid by gas stations--even though it was proven in federal court that the scheme would have no such economic effect.

In a case out of San Francisco, the Court held that landowners may no longer have their day in federal court when a local government has violated their rights guaranteed by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. San Francisco regularly tells hotel owners that they must pay a “fee” of hundreds of thousands of dollars for permission to rent existing rooms to tourists.

Now landowners can no longer go to federal court to argue that bizarre and extortionate policy violates the federal constitution’s proscription against “taking without just compensation.”

But the most notorious decision of this term was the 5 to 4 Kelo decision that upheld the raw power of the City of New London, Connecticut, to destroy a neighborhood of homes, including that of an 87 year old widow who had lived in her home since 1918.

So long as a “public purpose” is met, in this case by providing some aesthetic value to a large corporate headquarters project, the Court will not interfere. The language in the Constitution that property can be taken only for “public use” were just words to the Courts–words that can be shaped and reshaped to meet the needs of the state.

But if an 87 year old Connecticut widow can have her property rights destroyed, how about dozens of elderly landowners, many of them widows and widowers, near Lake Tahoe?

That is where Judge Roberts comes in.

In a notorious case in 2002, John Roberts, then a private attorney, argued that several dozen mostly elderly and middle class landowners should not receive a penny in compensation even after a local land use agency had prohibited all use of their property near Lake Tahoe for nearly 30 years.

In a nutshell, Roberts argued that impacts to property owners must be balanced against the utility of the regulation–in a way that tilts almost every time in the government’s favor. Unfortunately for the landowners, the Court agreed with him.

Of course, one might argue, Roberts was only doing what he was being paid to do as a high-priced lawyer to represent his client. But why then did he take the case for a “substantially reduced” fee as the chief of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency admits?

More disturbingly, Robert’s representation of the agency is entirely consistent with the statist philosophy he expressed in a 1978 Harvard Law Review article on land use law. He argued against clear rules that would put boundaries on government power over property in favor of essentially the same government-friendly “balancing test” that he advocated for in the Lake Tahoe case.

Even more troubling, he proposed a scheme that would deny money to landowners whose property is taken, using the sort of rhetoric that reminds us of Bill Clinton’s prevarications over the meaning of the word “is.” Roberts wrote: “The very terms of the fifth amendment, furthermore, are sufficiently flexible to accommodate changing notions of what compensation is ‘just.’”

Put another way, what we have here is not the “living constitution” so derided by strict constructionists, but a “mutating virus” infinitely malleable in the service of the state, and undeniably threatening to the rights of property owners. Justice O’Connor was a swing vote on property; with Roberts it will be the property owners who will be twisting in the wind. tOR

copyright 2005 Acton Institute


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: 5thamendment; billofrightslist; bush; constitutionlist; constructionist; eminentdomain; fifth; govwatch; johnroberts; judicial; judicialactivism; judiciary; kelo; kennedy; livingconstitution; modesty; orignialism; philosphy; propertyrights; restraint; scotus; souter; specter; strict; supremecourt; takings
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-140 next last
Heads up! Most disheartening & alarming...

I was really rooting for Roberts but now have serious reservations.

This analysis, from highly credible & very reputable conservative and libertarian Foundations (Pacific Legal Foundation & Acton Insittute) and publications deserves to be thoroughly examined.

1 posted on 08/19/2005 8:41:57 PM PDT by FReethesheeples
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Allosaurs_r_us; Abram; AlexandriaDuke; Annie03; Baby Bear; bassmaner; Bernard; BJClinton; ...

Eminent Domain, Property Rights interest group HEADS UP!


2 posted on 08/19/2005 8:44:06 PM PDT by FReethesheeples (Was the Narcissistic Joe Wilson a Source in "Outing" His Own Wife Valerie Plame as a "CIA Agent"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FReethesheeples

Is there a link to this case decision?


3 posted on 08/19/2005 8:47:13 PM PDT by Chuck54 (Confirm justice Roberts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32; abbi_normal_2; adam_az; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; alphadog; AMDG&BVMH; amom; ...

Property rights & Eminent Domain Heads UP.. We don't want a another *Souter* or Kennedy, if Roberts is weak & *Shaky* (squishy to say the least) on Property Rights as the Pacific Legal Foundation says he is. I was for him, but now have grave reservations.


4 posted on 08/19/2005 8:48:33 PM PDT by FReethesheeples (Was the Narcissistic Joe Wilson a Source in "Outing" His Own Wife Valerie Plame as a "CIA Agent"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee; Itzlzha; NRA2BFree; Happy2BMe; Spiff; Pelham; Das Outsider; moehoward; ...

ping!


5 posted on 08/19/2005 8:49:22 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite (Quisling hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Chuck54

Link to Pacific Legal Foudnation's analysis which presumably includes case links:

http://www.pacificlegal.org/view_Commentaries.asp?iID=169&sTitle=John+Roberts%3A+A+Supreme+Property+Rights+Disaster+in+the+Making


6 posted on 08/19/2005 8:49:55 PM PDT by FReethesheeples (Was the Narcissistic Joe Wilson a Source in "Outing" His Own Wife Valerie Plame as a "CIA Agent"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FReethesheeples

Very disturbing news. Is there any lawyer left that is willing to uphold the Constitution?


7 posted on 08/19/2005 8:50:00 PM PDT by ExitPurgamentum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FReethesheeples
” Roberts wrote: “The very terms of the fifth amendment, furthermore, are sufficiently flexible to accommodate changing notions of what compensation is ‘just.’”

And with that, I must be implacably opposed to Roberts ever serving as a judge in any court, let alone the US Supreme Court.

8 posted on 08/19/2005 8:51:14 PM PDT by sourcery ("Compelling State Interest" is the refuge of judicial activist traitors against the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chuck54

"In a notorious case in 2002, John Roberts, then a private attorney, argued that several dozen mostly elderly and middle class landowners should not receive a penny in compensation even after a local land use agency had prohibited all use of their property near Lake Tahoe for nearly 30 years.


"In a nutshell, Roberts argued that impacts to property owners must be balanced against the utility of the regulationÖin a way that tilts almost every time in the governmentÒs favor.


"Unfortunately for the landowners, the Court agreed with him.


"Of course, one might argue, Roberts was only doing what he was being paid to do as a high-priced lawyer to represent his client. But why then did he take the case for a Ósubstantially reducedÔ fee as the chief of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency admits?


"More disturbingly, RobertÒs representation of the agency is entirely consistent with the statist philosophy he expressed in a 1978 Harvard Law Review article on land use law. He argued against clear rules that would put boundaries on government power over property in favor of essentially the same government-friendly Óbalancing testÔ that he advocated for in the Lake Tahoe case.


"Even more troubling, he proposed a scheme that would deny money to landowners whose property is taken, using the sort of rhetoric that reminds us of Bill ClintonÒs prevarications over the meaning of the word Óis.Ô Roberts wrote: ÓThe very terms of the fifth amendment, furthermore, are sufficiently flexible to accommodate changing notions of what compensation is Ñjust.ÒÔ


"Put another way, what we have here is not the Óliving constitutionÔ so derided by strict constructionists, but a Ómutating virusÔ infinitely malleable in the service of the state, and undeniably threatening to the rights of property owners. Justice OÒConnor was a swing vote on property; with Roberts it will be the property owners who will be twisting in the wind."


9 posted on 08/19/2005 8:52:16 PM PDT by FReethesheeples (Was the Narcissistic Joe Wilson a Source in "Outing" His Own Wife Valerie Plame as a "CIA Agent"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FReethesheeples

I'm not going to jump on this quite yet. 50000+ pages of work and you are bound to find a few that you disagree with.

I trust Bush on judicial appointees and I trust john roberts.


10 posted on 08/19/2005 8:52:26 PM PDT by zendari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExitPurgamentum

Mark Levine for SCOTUS!!!


11 posted on 08/19/2005 8:53:23 PM PDT by Leo Carpathian (FReeeePeee!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FReethesheeples
Ominous
12 posted on 08/19/2005 8:53:32 PM PDT by satchmodog9 (Murder and weather are our only news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FReethesheeples

Why, because he holds it legal that Congress can regulate interstate commerce and states can regulate intrastate commerce? It is pretty clear that the Constitution says that Congress can regulate interstate Congress. That puts the onus on us to elect Congresscritters who understand some economics.


13 posted on 08/19/2005 8:53:34 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FReethesheeples

Negative externalities not incorporated into the price system are a bitch. Land use is all about economic externalities, positive and negative. Ranting about takings, while ignoring the economic externalities, is well, obtuse. Take another shot. This one misses.


14 posted on 08/19/2005 8:53:45 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FReethesheeples

Speechless.


15 posted on 08/19/2005 8:55:52 PM PDT by One Dight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
Alarming quote of yours from Roberts: "Roberts wrote: “ "The very terms of the fifth amendment, furthermore, are sufficiently flexible to accommodate changing notions of what compensation is ‘just." ’”" If this is an accurate quote, your further comment is potentially justified in my view, --- although there are many possible meanings to what is "just" since he may possibly have meant simply, for instance, that land or real estate tends, over time, to go up in value, altough he is disturbingly vague unless his quote is given more CONTEXT: You continued: "And with that, I must be implacably opposed to Roberts ever serving as a judge in any court, let alone the US Supreme Court."
16 posted on 08/19/2005 8:58:56 PM PDT by FReethesheeples (Was the Narcissistic Joe Wilson a Source in "Outing" His Own Wife Valerie Plame as a "CIA Agent"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FReethesheeples

This is a scary fellow.


17 posted on 08/19/2005 9:00:19 PM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FReethesheeples

"I was really rooting for Roberts but now have serious reservations."

I haven't trusted the guy since he gave his nomination acceptance speech and called our Republic a "constitutional democracy."

I saw that as a code word to the "living constitution" folks.


18 posted on 08/19/2005 9:02:16 PM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Negative externalities not incorporated into the price system are a bitch. Land use is all about economic externalities, positive and negative. Ranting about takings, while ignoring the economic externalities, is well, obtuse.

It's not really obtuse, but I'll give you a pass on that.

For someone familiar with the term "externalities," you are surprisingly hasty. Risk associated with uncertainty regarding property rights is an enormous negative externally. In the limit, when property rights are not enforces at all, you arrive at the Hobbesian nightmare.

So, if you want to take into account externalities, then take into account all known ones. As soon as you include that which stems from the owner's uncertainty about his rights to the property in his possession, it will outweigh any other positive ones you may come across.

Make Tories proud --- be consistent.

19 posted on 08/19/2005 9:02:49 PM PDT by ExitPurgamentum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ExitPurgamentum; Congressman Billybob

"Very disturbing news. Is there any lawyer left that is willing to uphold the Constitution?"

I believe one of the last is a FReeper.

Paging the honorable Billybob!


20 posted on 08/19/2005 9:03:33 PM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Torie

I undeerstand externalities, having taken econ at Yale and elsewhere, and having worked as an intern at CBO, but what is disturbing about this is the following quote from the article:


"In a nutshell, Roberts argued that impacts to property owners must be balanced against the utility of the regulation "in a way that tilts almost every time in the government's favor.""


21 posted on 08/19/2005 9:03:42 PM PDT by FReethesheeples (Was the Narcissistic Joe Wilson a Source in "Outing" His Own Wife Valerie Plame as a "CIA Agent"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: FReethesheeples

I smell a civil war on the horizon if we don't start putting some people in Washington that are true to the Oaths that they swear that UPHOLD AND DEFEND the Constitution of these United States.


22 posted on 08/19/2005 9:04:47 PM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FReethesheeples

"In a nutshell, Roberts argued that impacts to property owners must be balanced against the utility of the regulation "in a way that tilts almost every time in the government's favor."

I hate the word utility.

Screw that commie Millsian crap.


23 posted on 08/19/2005 9:05:54 PM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ExitPurgamentum; Torie

Good analysis of yours to Torie @ # 19:

"For someone familiar with the term "externalities," you are surprisingly hasty. Risk associated with uncertainty regarding property rights is an enormous negative externally. In the limit, when property rights are not enforces at all, you arrive at the Hobbesian nightmare.

"So, if you want to take into account externalities, then take into account all known ones. As soon as you include that which stems from the owner's uncertainty about his rights to the property in his possession, it will outweigh any other positive ones you may come across."

"Make Tories proud --- be consistent."

My comment: Well put!


24 posted on 08/19/2005 9:06:43 PM PDT by FReethesheeples (Was the Narcissistic Joe Wilson a Source in "Outing" His Own Wife Valerie Plame as a "CIA Agent"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FReethesheeples

Knowing something about Lake Tahoe, the problem was it was being slowly turned from a pristine lake into a cesspool from too rapid development without adequate sewage infrastruture.


25 posted on 08/19/2005 9:06:45 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: FReethesheeples; Leatherneck_MT; ExitPurgamentum; adam_az; One Dight; satchmodog9; ...

On the related note of property, you might be interested in this story if you haven't heard about it already:



"Migrants awarded vigilante's Ariz. ranch"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1466905/posts


26 posted on 08/19/2005 9:08:07 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ExitPurgamentum

Risk is a cost. But risk associated with trying to incorporate economic externalities into the price system is an economically efficient risk cost. Of course, what was happening here was going off at the handle without really knowing the facts of the case. It was one of those ideological knee jerk thingies. I will react negatively to that each and every time it happens, unless my knee happens to be jerking. And so it goes.


27 posted on 08/19/2005 9:10:36 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: adam_az

I hadn't thought of John Stuart Mill as a commie unitl you mentioned it just now. I suppose there are "dialectical" & even Marxist implications of "utilitarianism."

;^)

After all, aren't "needs" the rough equivalent of "happiness" or in the later ulilitarian's terms: "Utils." ("Utils" were defined as "Units of happiness" or "Units of pleasure," as I recall.)(sp?)


28 posted on 08/19/2005 9:11:44 PM PDT by FReethesheeples (Was the Narcissistic Joe Wilson a Source in "Outing" His Own Wife Valerie Plame as a "CIA Agent"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ExitPurgamentum

Are we talking with or without money involved?


29 posted on 08/19/2005 9:11:47 PM PDT by sonsofliberty2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

Thanks for the following Link:

"Migrants awarded vigilante's Ariz. ranch"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1466905/posts


30 posted on 08/19/2005 9:12:41 PM PDT by FReethesheeples (Was the Narcissistic Joe Wilson a Source in "Outing" His Own Wife Valerie Plame as a "CIA Agent"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: zendari
I trust Bush on judicial appointees and I trust john roberts.

Implicitly trusting professional big-government politicians kills free societies, and therefore is a terrible, self-destructive idea.

31 posted on 08/19/2005 9:13:54 PM PDT by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FReethesheeples
The very terms of the fifth amendment, furthermore, are sufficiently flexible to accommodate changing notions of what compensation is ‘just.’”

This statement in itself could mean anything. I for one am not going to sway back and forth with every article that comes out on Roberts. The stuff I have been able to dig up on him shows him to be conservative.

Lawyers work for people and argue their cases, criminal lawyers defend known murderers frequently and try to get them off. I do not know for sure if he actually utter these words or not and will not allow myself to think one way or another until I can research this on my own and find out what he actually said and what he argued for or against.

The main thing is this, there is nothing in what this article says that indicates he is for the public purpose stance of the supreme court, what the article talks about is the compensation factor. We don't know what the whole case was in Tahoe but I am going to find out and as far as the quote he made about the 5th amendment I am going to find out what he meant by that, indeed, I am going to find out if he even said it.

32 posted on 08/19/2005 9:14:54 PM PDT by calex59 (If you have to take me apart to get me there, then I don't want to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Negative externalities not incorporated into the price system are a bitch. Land use is all about economic externalities, positive and negative. Ranting about takings, while ignoring the economic externalities, is well, obtuse. Take another shot. This one misses.

Karl Marx couldn't have put it better in the first plank of the "Communist Manifesto".

Which doesn't mean quite yet that I will associate Roberts with your philosophy.

33 posted on 08/19/2005 9:16:38 PM PDT by Jim_Curtis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
I certainly agree that the SCOTUS' 5-4 decision threatening the remnants of the Takings' Clause of the 5th Amendment and Property Rights has already invited a firestorm of alarming and appropriate proportions in Public Opinion.

Kelo was a very real, very grave, --- and perhaps overdue (but highly unwelcome!), --- Wake Up Call, that many both on the left and right have taken to heart.
34 posted on 08/19/2005 9:17:22 PM PDT by FReethesheeples (Was the Narcissistic Joe Wilson a Source in "Outing" His Own Wife Valerie Plame as a "CIA Agent"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: FReethesheeples

As it stands..our only defense is to pass state legislation or initiatives to limit takings to govt. needs and not private.
I'm afraid on the federal level the decision is done for a long time.
With a left/right we need to handle this on state, county, and city level. Cut them off at the knees.


35 posted on 08/19/2005 9:26:12 PM PDT by Oldexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: adam_az

What's commie about utility?


36 posted on 08/19/2005 9:30:57 PM PDT by ExitPurgamentum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: FReethesheeples

NO LONGER A JOKE .....

One man says to a second man: "Do you believe in the First Amendment freedom of speech?"

The second man says: "Of course I do."

The first man then asks: "Do you believe in the Second Amendment freedom to bear arms?"

The second man replies: "No, I don't."

The first man insists: "Then shut up!"

The moral of the story is: you can have your rights, but you have to protect and defend them, too.



"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

Ronald Reagan


37 posted on 08/19/2005 9:31:58 PM PDT by hombre_sincero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FReethesheeples

Many thanks for your kind words.


38 posted on 08/19/2005 9:32:02 PM PDT by ExitPurgamentum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis; Torie; Chuck54
As I said, I still want to remain open on Roberts until I have digested the full implications of this and maybe have seen other writings of his, but this is a most unsettling analysis by a fellow who is a Senior Legal Analyst with Pacific Legal Foundation, which is a very respectable conservative/libertarian group.

So is Acton Institute, through whom this article is also published, quite impeccable as advocates of private enterprise and free market economics.

However, I have zero tolerance for anyone who is a candidate for the Supremes who is soft on Private Property Rights, which are so terribly fundamental and so key to understanding what makes America America, and Property Rights are absolutely fundamental to the Founders' thinking as to be literally sacred, and their undertstanding and protection is an absolute and inviolable sine qua non of being a "qualified judge" at any level.

Roberts needs to give some comfort and clarity and even assurances, somehow, on his view of private property rights. He cannot do so on unadjudciated cases. He may be able to do so on past cases, but at some peril to the important position that he should not, nor should any judicial candidate, give an indication prejudicial to future cases. What a dilemma and what a conundrum.
39 posted on 08/19/2005 9:32:04 PM PDT by FReethesheeples (Was the Narcissistic Joe Wilson a Source in "Outing" His Own Wife Valerie Plame as a "CIA Agent"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: hombre_sincero

Amen to you at #37.


40 posted on 08/19/2005 9:32:45 PM PDT by FReethesheeples (Was the Narcissistic Joe Wilson a Source in "Outing" His Own Wife Valerie Plame as a "CIA Agent"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: calex59

One thing we do know about Tahoe is that it was a "takings case" and the landowner lost and Roberts, --- & the government, --- won.


41 posted on 08/19/2005 9:35:28 PM PDT by FReethesheeples (Was the Narcissistic Joe Wilson a Source in "Outing" His Own Wife Valerie Plame as a "CIA Agent"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ExitPurgamentum

Thank you for your wise words.


42 posted on 08/19/2005 9:35:58 PM PDT by FReethesheeples (Was the Narcissistic Joe Wilson a Source in "Outing" His Own Wife Valerie Plame as a "CIA Agent"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: FReethesheeples

Roberts really doesn't "need" to do any of that. He will be confirmed. But of course he will be asked about this in the hearings, and I suspect he will explain what I explained, albeit perhaps with less economic jargin. The hearings should be grand. I plan to take time off to watch them.


43 posted on 08/19/2005 9:36:08 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Oldexpat

I must say Amen to you @ # 35.


44 posted on 08/19/2005 9:36:42 PM PDT by FReethesheeples (Was the Narcissistic Joe Wilson a Source in "Outing" His Own Wife Valerie Plame as a "CIA Agent"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: calex59; FReethesheeples

Here is the case and reaction from Lake Tahoe:

Tahoe planner recalls Roberts as 'impressive'
The nominee's win on agency's behalf was one of several before high court.
By Michael Doyle -- Bee Washington Bureau
Published 2:15 am PDT Saturday, July 23, 2005
Story appeared on Page A6 of The Bee

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/local_government/story/13282647p-14124962c.html

And I think this is the actual ruling on the case:

TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL, INC., et al. v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING
AGENCY et al.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=00-1167


45 posted on 08/19/2005 9:39:24 PM PDT by bobsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Hank Rearden; zendari

Amen to you at # 31. (To zendari), who sid he "trust"-ed Pres. Bush's vetting of Roberts:

Or to quote Ronald Reagan:

"TRUST," ---

[Bush's vetting of Roberts (up to a point)],

--- "but VERIFY."


46 posted on 08/19/2005 9:41:12 PM PDT by FReethesheeples (Was the Narcissistic Joe Wilson a Source in "Outing" His Own Wife Valerie Plame as a "CIA Agent"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine; Chuck54

Thanks for the legal citation on the Tahoe case that Roberts argued and the associated links. (Note to Chuck54, who correctly asked for the case citation, here it is, below):

Your (bobsunshine's) statement: "Here is the case and reaction from Lake Tahoe:

"Tahoe planner recalls Roberts as 'impressive'
The nominee's win on agency's behalf was one of several before high court."
By Michael Doyle -- Bee Washington Bureau
Published 2:15 am PDT Saturday, July 23, 2005
Story appeared on Page A6 of The Bee

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/local_government/story/13282647p-14124962c.html

You further stated that:

"And I think this is the actual ruling on the case:

TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL, INC., et al. v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING
AGENCY et al.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=00-1167


Many thanks, Bobsunshine!


47 posted on 08/19/2005 9:45:32 PM PDT by FReethesheeples (Was the Narcissistic Joe Wilson a Source in "Outing" His Own Wife Valerie Plame as a "CIA Agent"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: FReethesheeples

This does NOT sound good. Not at ALL.

The odor of justice Souter wafts faintly on the breeze...


48 posted on 08/19/2005 9:46:09 PM PDT by HKMk23 (GoT this sweLl tagline on eBay with changE I found in my soFa. It's a "fixer.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
And with that, I must be implacably opposed to Roberts ever serving as a judge in any court, let alone the US Supreme Court.

I agree. The US is overpopulated with lawyers who do not know the definition of justice or that the word "Just" represents the = sign in the legal affairs of men.

Roberts is beginning to appear as "just" (='s) another Souter on steroids.

49 posted on 08/19/2005 9:47:02 PM PDT by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sunshine Sister; TheFrog; Jarhead1957

Heads up!


50 posted on 08/19/2005 9:47:15 PM PDT by FReethesheeples (Was the Narcissistic Joe Wilson a Source in "Outing" His Own Wife Valerie Plame as a "CIA Agent"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-140 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson