I really hate being right about Roberts.

Bush promised us a "strict constructionist", but gave us a statist instead. Can't say I'm surprised...  

A Supreme Property Rights Disaster In The Making: More Kelo on the SCOTUS horizon?

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.

Is it that nobody's surprised or is it that nobody cares?

that's just great - another one on the court

It speaks volumes about GWB.

I care.  

Who would be a good choice?  For some reason, I don't trust Roberts.  This gives some substance to my gut feel.  I certainly think W has a litmus test of his own that he uses and certainly some issues are more important than others to him.

Quoted: It speaks volumes about GWB.

That dude is starting to really piss me off. WTF. He's from Texas pulling some shit like this...

Quoted: Is it that nobody's surprised or is it that nobody cares?

We can't think in anything longer than a sound bite. Can you summarize his position in three words or less?

Interesting spin.

Quoted: Is it that nobody's surprised or is it that nobody cares?

Nope. More like folks are tired of Libertarians consistently attacking Conservatives more than they go after Liberals. And using rhetoric like 'Statist' to do it with.

Quoted: Is it that nobody's surprised or is it that nobody cares?

What do you have in mind to do about it besides ineffective letter writing to uncaring senators and raging away at the internet? No offense intended, this is beyond belief to me. What to do; that would have a measurable effect?

Quoted: Is it that nobody's surprised or is it that nobody cares?

We all know you hate Catholics.  And this isn't the religon forum.

Quoted: Quoted: Is it that nobody's surprised or is it that nobody cares? We all know you hate Catholics.  And this isn't the religon forum.

WTF?

Quoted: Quoted: Is it that nobody's surprised or is it that nobody cares? We all know you hate Catholics.  And this isn't the religon forum.

I'm sorry..... but what?

A Private Attorney? IE, he was working for a large private lawfirm, and did what he was hired to do?

Quoted: Quoted: Is it that nobody's surprised or is it that nobody cares? Nope. More like folks are tired of Libertarians consistently attacking Conservatives more than they go after Liberals. And using rhetoric like 'Statist' to do it with.

Why continue to attack the people that you know are your enemy? So-called "conservatives" are far more dangerous to liberty at this time because we the people still trust them. We know that liberals hate our freedom, but when will we realize that the neocons do as well? Libertarians may be crazy on a lot of things, but they can see the writing on the wall.

Quoted: Quoted: It speaks volumes about GWB. That dude is starting to really piss me off. WTF. He's from Texas pulling some shit like this...

What else did you expect from the offspring of Bush I?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Is it that nobody's surprised or is it that nobody cares? We all know you hate Catholics.  And this isn't the religon forum. WTF?

Agreed. WTF +1000?!?!?!

Lawyers argue for a living.  My niece wanted to work for the District Attorney but they kind of shafted her and now she works for a criminal attorney, defending the accused, quite zealously.

Quoted: Quoted: Is it that nobody's surprised or is it that nobody cares? We all know you hate Catholics.  And this isn't the religon forum.

Ya know Keith, I think you just won the 2005 "I couldn't be more wrong" award with your asinine statement.

Where to begin??? I was baptized & raised a Catholic. My parents & siblings are Catholic. My wife & her entire family are devout Catholics. I was married in a Catholic ceremony.

If you haven't gotten the picture yet smart guy, let me spell it out for you... while I am not currently a practicing Catholic, I have nothing but respect & admiration for the Church & it's disciples. Thus, I DARE YOU to point to ONE statement that I have posted on these forums that would lead you or anyone else to believe that I am anti-Catholic is any way, shape, or form!  

I'm calling you out "friend"... put up or shut your ignorant pie hole.

Seriously, stop pretending that you have ANY insight into who I am... it only makes you look stupid.  

Quoted: Is it that nobody's surprised or is it that nobody cares?

NYPatriot, you are not showing the proper deference to the Ruling Class.

Your attitude has been noted!

You will not do well under the New World Order

Dupe.

Sorry.

Keith_J...

We all know you hate Catholics...

Myself...

I DARE YOU to point to ONE statement that I have posted on these forums that would lead you or anyone else to believe that I am anti-Catholic is any way, shape, or form! I'm calling you out "friend"... put up or shut your ignorant pie hole.

I'm waiting Kieth_J.

You made quite the accusatory statement about me, and I want you produce some eveidnce that your slanderous words are true.

C'mon Kieth... you know everything about me. It should be easy for you to prove that I'm an anti-Catholic bigot.  

All ABOARD! All aboard.. next stop, The Pit.. tickets please!

Quoted: Quoted: Is it that nobody's surprised or is it that nobody cares? Nope. More like folks are tired of Libertarians consistently attacking Conservatives more than they go after Liberals. And using rhetoric like 'Statist' to do it with.

No Libertarians address Conservatives because we VOTE for them.

We don't bother with liberals, wanna guess why?

I was paid to say it.

Pot calling kettle black.  Now you know how Judge Roberts feels.



The "reports" on Judge Robert's past are only veiled leftists ramblings for making tools out of the wary right.  All are from his work as an attorney, not a judge.

And I took this task at half my usual compensation rate.  

Quoted: It speaks volumes about GWB.

Voted for him twice.

Honestly can't say I know what the fuck he is thinking.

Pretty sad when the best case I can come up with is only "Kerry would have done more damage."

Quoted: I was paid to say it. Pot calling kettle black.  Now you know how Judge Roberts feels.

Yup... just the kind of lame ass non-response I knew you would come up with.

Piss off...

It seems strange to me that some of you excuse Roberts' indifference to personal property rights just because he was paid large amounts of money to do what was licentious.

That sounds a lot like, "I was only following orders!" at Nuremburg.

If the best thing you can say about a guy is that he is utterly self-serving, that ain't much.  

Quoted: It seems strange to me that some of you excuse Roberts' indifference to personal property rights just because he was paid large amounts of money to do what was licentious. That sounds a lot like, "I was only following orders!" at Nuremburg. If the best thing you can say about a guy is that he is utterly self-serving, that ain't much.

No, you along with the rest of the paper-skinned chairborne rangers here are being used as tools by the leftist media.  How so?  If you dredged through casework done by even Rehnquist, you would find the EXACT SAME TYPE OF CASES.  

Not one of these cases comes from his work as a judge.  And that is what matters.

Quoted: Quoted: It speaks volumes about GWB. Voted for him twice. Honestly can't say I know what the fuck he is thinking. Pretty sad when the best case I can come up with is only "Kerry would have done more damage."

I'm starting to feel this way as well.  It's a far cry from where we all were a little less than a year ago waiting for election returns and high fiving each other.  

Quoted: Quoted: It speaks volumes about GWB. Voted for him twice. Honestly can't say I know what the fuck he is thinking. Pretty sad when the best case I can come up with is only "Kerry would have done more damage."

Same here, sad but true.

Quoted: Is it that nobody's surprised or is it that nobody cares? hr

No. A lot of us care. A lot of us voted for Bush because he was not Kerry.

George Bush is no friend of the gun owner, the property owner, the business owner, or the working man, or those who value personal freedoms. He is still much better than Kerry, IMO.

Roberts is yet another Statist rights-grabber. I cannot think of one honorable citizen still on the SCOTUS. All are infected with the poision of politics.

We'll see what happens next election. My contribution that year will again go to those who take away less of my rights than the other.

DT

Aw shit.

Quoted: Quoted: It speaks volumes about GWB. Voted for him twice. Honestly can't say I know what the fuck he is thinking. Pretty sad when the best case I can come up with is only "Kerry would have done more damage."

My sentiments exactly. The man has completly lost his mind, and he's flushing the country down the toilet.

I also voted for him twice, and even volunteered to work for his reelection campaign.

Quoted: Quoted: Is it that nobody's surprised or is it that nobody cares? No. A lot of us care. A lot of us voted for Bush because he was not Kerry. George Bush is no friend of the gun owner, the property owner, the business owner, or the working man, or those who value personal freedoms. He is still much marginally better than Kerry, IMO. Roberts is yet another Statist rights-grabber. I cannot think of one honorable citizen still on the SCOTUS. All are infected with the poision of politics. We'll see what happens next election. My contribution that year will again go to those who take away less of my rights than the other.

fixed it for ya.

Quoted: We'll see what happens next election. My contribution that year will again go to those who take away less of my rights than the other.

Fuck that shit. I've had it with the parties.

Next time around I'm voting third party.

Good thing we voted for Bush. Otherwise we might have gotten a "centrist" on the Supreme Court.

Are you people missing the point?

He was a private attorney... not a judge..

Let me re-spell it..



Private   Attorney.

He was paid to do a job.

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.

Quoted:
Are you people missing the point?

He was a private attorney... not a judge..

Let me re-spell it..



Private   Attorney.

He was paid to do a job.

Did you read the entire article? Did you comprehend the entire article? Pleas refer to the extra large print.

Quoted: Are you people missing the point? He was a private attorney... not a judge.. Let me re-spell it.. Private   Attorney. He was paid to do a job.

Even better.  Not only is he willing to shit on property rights, he has an established fee!

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

This is seriously funny. Please keep it up.

Chuckle.. chuckle.. mother... f@cker !

This topic, taxation and crazy gov't spending are all playing connect the dots...

The writting is on the wall and we need reform which none of these monkeys are willing to follow through on. With an article like this... (If true) speculating Roberts is an enemy of property owners is easier than specualting he will defend the constitution. Unless you have an article (If true) showing me he ever defended a property owner..



On a side note: What did Shakespear say we had to do to all the lawyers?

God Washington would be empty.

Quoted: Quoted: It speaks volumes about GWB. Voted for him twice. Honestly can't say I know what the fuck he is thinking. Pretty sad when the best case I can come up with is only "Kerry would have done more damage."

da-da-damn.

+1,000,000,000,000,.....................................................................

Quoted: The sky is falling, the sky is falling. This is seriously funny. Please keep it up.

Are all as 4600+ posts are inept as this one?

sad

FREE

Quoted: Quoted: The sky is falling, the sky is falling. This is seriously funny. Please keep it up. Are all as 4600+ posts are inept as this one?

Pardon me if I don't get worked up over one article quoting a handful of sentences. I don't base my opinion of a man based on a handful of sentences over the past 30 years. These "findings" in his papers-which may or may not be in context- over the last 30 years, are only a prelude to the hearings. The hearings will be the real show, when he has to answer tough questions about his entire career in front of the Senate and the American people.

I'll create my own judgement of the man based on his entire career. Feel free, however, to be led around by the nose by anyone with an agenda. It certainly is funny to watch the 'crowd' go nuts at ever WND story or story about the Chinese or story about W not doing exactly what you want.

Quoted: The hearings will be the real show, when he has to answer tough questions about his entire career in front of the Senate and the American people.

If by "answer" you mean artfully dodge all questions
related to case law using the excuse that he may have
to rule on the topic.

The hearings are political "gotcha" jerkoff affair for
both sides, not the substantive, informational
session that you assume them to be.

All I can say about GWB is that the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree.  Look at his father's position on property rights, and the UN's power should be expanded.