Posted on 01/24/2016 7:32:18 PM PST by Zhang Fei
She once called Donald Trump "a maggot, a cockroach and a crumb." This week, he remembered her as "an impossible person."
...
Coking battled with Trump and prevailed in a 1998 state Supreme Court case that blocked attempts by the state to use eminent domain to condemn the property.
...
But back in the day, Coking wasn't afraid to throw a zinger. At the height of their battle in 1998, the 70-year-old Coking said of Trump to the New York Daily News: "A maggot, a cockroach and a crumb, that's what he is."
"If Trump's thinking I'm gonna die tomorrow, he's having himself a pipe dream," she said then. "I'm gonna be here for a long, long time. I'll stay just to see he's not getting my house. We'll be going to his funeral, you can count on that."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
"I like bright shiny objects."
-- The Iceman Cometh
That's about the limit of your contributions here. I thought this site was supposed to observe courtesies such as no personal attack, stick to the issues.
I will go back to my usual habit of just ignoring your posts, and of wondering why some posters are allowed to personally insult people over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over .... while others are reprimanded merely for civilly expressing a political opinion/decision.
I would love to donate ... am waiting, however, for some reassurance that neither I nor any other conservative will be zotted solely for civilly expressing a political opinion, even if it is an opinion I abhor. Zotting for personal insults and profanity, yes -- but for an opinion, the whole point of being here is to express opinions freely and to READ freely expressed opinions of fellow conservatives. When conservatives can't express their political opinions freely on FR ... FR ceases to be of value to conservatives. Just sayin'.
You probably wouldn't be surprised at the names I've been called. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. This is a contest and a heated one.
There's a lot on the line. I understand the passion and zeal on both sides.
You probably would be surprised that I've defended Cruz here and there and have taken heat from Trump supporters.
He did a similar thing in Ireland.
sorry, SCOTLAND.
I guess both Trump and her are half-wits, since Trump said he was prepared to offer many times today's market price for the property. Given that Trump had legions of analysts at his beck and call, who's the bigger half-wit? Or perhaps both of them were counting on AC continuing to dominate the gaming business in the Northeast.
Kelo didn't change squat. Read up on Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954), Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984), or literally go through more than a hundred years of the government using eminent domain from everything for private railroad companies to razing blighted neighborhoods for private development.
There was literally no other decision the court could make after looking at that history.
Right. That’s why the conservatives on the court dissented and your fellow travelers, the statists, made fools of themselves.
That's why they were ON the dissenting side, otherwise for most of the US's history, eminent domain has been abused.
I am just curious. Do you know why Kennedy’s use of Berman and Midkiff as precedent in Kelo was completely and utterly nonsense?
This leads me to believe you don't understand the material well enough to tell me yourself.
Lol. So you are clueless??
Here is a hint Puny. New London was neither blighted nor oligarchical and Ct legislature made no laws concerning the taking. No more hints.
One more question. Do you know why you agree with the statists who think
Kelo was correctly decided? Let me know if you need another hint.
The CT Legislature had indeed passed legislation for development of the area that met the "carefully considered" requirements of previous cases. Furthermore, the entire city was considered to be distressed, and land already purchased by developers with the remaining land needed to finish the project.
The dissent is bizarre because it claims, in the case of the Hawaiian situation, that "extreme wealth" is literally a cause of harm for the public at large, and that because redistributing the land had a "direct" affect on alleviating this problem, it is okay to redistribute land in that situation and not in Kelo.
The simple reply is that there is no reason to conclude that developing a distressed area isn't any less direct than "redistributing" land, and economic stagnation is just as much a harm as "extreme wealth," using the logic of the court. I'll also add that only 60 percent of the homes that were condemned under Berman v. Parker were in a blighted condition. That means homes that were NOT blighted were condemned also.
What's stupid about this is that even the Dissent argues that eminent domain can be used for a "public benefit," thus permitting private to private transfer of property.
False. The entity that decided that the homeowners and homes in Fort Trumbull had to go was private. " In February 1998, Pfizer Inc., the pharmaceuticals manufacturer, announced that it would build a global research facility near the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. Two months later, New London’s city council gave initial approval for the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) to prepare the development plan at issue here. The NLDC is a private, nonprofit corporation whose mission is to assist the city council in economic development planning. It is not elected by popular vote, and its directors and employees are privately appointed." Justice O'Connor
The CT legislature passed NO law concerning Fort Trumbull in New London.
The dissent is bizarre because it claims, in the case of the Hawaiian situation, that "extreme wealth" is literally a cause of harm for the public at large, and that because redistributing the land had a "direct" affect on alleviating this problem, it is okay to redistribute land in that situation and not in Kelo.
Midkiff held that the court had to give deference to the state legislature in redistribution of wealth, in this case property. Whatever you think of Midkiff, and I think it should have been overturned, it is distinguished from Kelo because Midkiff theoretically was an act by the State Legislature to mitigate an existing "social harm". What it actually did was cause the property values to skyrocket. Unintended consequence of statism.
The simple reply is that there is no reason to conclude that developing a distressed area isn't any less direct than "redistributing" land, and economic stagnation is just as much a harm as "extreme wealth," using the logic of the court. I'll also add that only 60 percent of the homes that were condemned under Berman v. Parker were in a blighted condition. That means homes that were NOT blighted were condemned also.
You don't have a passing acquaintence with the truth. Fort Trumbull was not "blighted" at all. Mrs. Kelo's home and the area in question was very nice. I know, I was there and met her. Though Berman should simply have been overruled once again the Court deferred to the legislative body in this case Congress. Not a bought and paid for private entity which is exactly what the New London Development Corporation was.
You really don't know much about what you post. But you do it with authority!
PS: Your last 100 years meme is not worth a tinkers damn. Even John Paul Stevens apologized for his misunderstanding of the law which had him citing Lochner era cases before the Fifth Amendment was applied against state government. In so doing he conflated Due Process Clause precedents with Takings Clause precedents. Like you.
The lengths you go to to defend the taking of private party is simply amazing. Are you Donald Trump? :-}
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.