Posted on 06/23/2017 2:20:20 PM PDT by Sopater
+1
Kinda like voting to repeal obamacare over and over when you know it will never be signed into law.
You left out John Roberts and Sandra Day O'Connor, two more completely untrustworthy jurists appointed by Republican Presidents.
Let's add Blackmun to the list for good measure.
It appraised at $400,000. They were forced to sell to the only possible buyer, the local government, at $40,000, instead of getting $400,000 for a proper Eminent Domain Taking. That's a decrease of $360,000 out of $400,000. That's 90%. It isn't difficult math.
What's appalling is that the "modern version" of Eminent Domain is bad enough, and hated by most... but here government is still Taking, AND refusing to even compensate for it!!!!
(And saddest of all, the landowners' primary ally was other state governments who easily foresee this being used by DC to take from the states. It seems that virtually nobody at all was concerned about the acceleration of Taking from individuals.
There's only one way to fight City Hall, and it ain't with scumbag lawyers.
Justice Kennedy. Father of American sodomy.
By the time we’re done, it will have been easier to list the successful picks by Republican Presidents.
Anthony Kennedy strikes again. The sooner he, and hopefully justice Ginsburg, leave the bench to retire, or on a stretcher, the better. It is still going to take years or decades to reverse all the harm the liberals have caused.
“It appraised at $400,000. They were forced to sell to the only possible buyer, the local government, at $40,000, instead of getting $400,000 for a proper Eminent Domain Taking. That’s a decrease of $360,000 out of $400,000. That’s 90%. It isn’t difficult math.”
If I may be presumptuous, you get an A+ from me, Teacher317. Some people don’t know how to do basic math. You do.
From the article:
To avoid liability in the case, the state and county told the Murrs they could combine the two parcels of land for regulatory purposes. This meant that even though the two pieces of land were separate and the Murr family paid taxes on them separately, the family would be unable to make a takings claim for one of the two parcels.
In short, they could sell both lots together, but not one or the other.
Hey I only cut off nine of your fingers what’s your problem?
The majority of the Supreme Court should have been impeached years ago.
Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan have brought disrepute on the Court.
What liability? I guess that’s the part I’m not getting. I understand that the State was motivated by the urge to steal, as all States are, to one degree or another. But I’m just not following the RATIONALE. How does one owner of two parcels represent LIABILITY. Not talking about reality, but the stated reasoning. Were the supremes openly upholding the right of states to make random land-grabs? Of course not. They were pretending it was something else. I don’t follow the “something else”.
Theft.
“It appraised at $400,000.”
Wrong.
But that's what the constitution requires. The real solution is for governments not to attempt to screw people out of their property rights.
“If I may be presumptuous, you get an A+ from me, Teacher317. Some people don’t know how to do basic math. You do.”
The the was easy but it was a case of garbage in, garbage out.
If you read the actual decision instead of an inaccurate article it is all very clear.
Bwahahahahahahahaha
“They were forced to sell”
I missed that. Or did you make it up?
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.