I agree. What a travesty of justice.
Nice to see Roberts pulled his head out on this one. I guess the full house on the other side did give him a chance to seem reasoned though.
Much easier to write a “scathing dissent” when you know it doesn’t mean crap.
“Nice to see Roberts pulled his head out on this one. “
You obviously did not read his ‘dissent’.
Roberts:
The Court today holds that the regulation does not effect ataking that requires just compensation. This bottom-line conclusion does not trouble me; the majority presents a fair case that the Murrs can still make good use of bothlots, and that the ordinance is a commonplace tool topreserve scenic areas, such as the Lower St. Croix River, for the benefit of landowners and the public alike.