Newest Supreme Court ruling

Don't ****ing question my education, I don't need to read articles about this subject, when its blatantly obvious why they ruled the way they did. I think you my friend should read up on the basics of law and not trust your friends and articles written by the media.

 

LsuCraig, who the **** do you think you are trying to call me out for basically saying what I thought the ruling was about (no we haven't discussed this ruling in class). What is your high and mighty educational background? Please sir, if you are more suited to give an opinion on a supreme court ruling, then do it. But don't call me out because I give a valid reason the court ruled in favor of the state's right to control there on takings. There are only a few guys on here that have legal schooling, and you don't come off as a legal scholar.

 

Answer this though Morris Bart wannabe

It most certainly is not a ruling for state's rights. If it was why wasn't Scalia part of the majority? He's the biggest advocate on the court for state's rights? The state court made their rulings based on the Connecticut State Constitution and the Supreme Court affirmed their decision based on the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution. They rewrote the phrase of takings for "Public Use" to "Private Use" for the "Public Good in the 5th Amendment"

Maybe you should take a few make-up classes if this doesn't make sense cause these are the facts and I didn't have to sit through "How to rip off hardworking people 101" to know it.

 

And if you don't want my advice about the law, don't ask. I was being nice and saying if anyone had a question about a BASIC legal problem, then I would do my best. You sir have penis envy.

 

There is no opinion about the 5th Amendment..........it says for "PUBLIC USE." The very foundation of this country has held that PRIVATE property cannot be taken and given to other PRIVATE citizens for their use. They are tearing down perfectly fine homes, not blighted homes to build other, BETTER homes. It's just not a shopping mall and a park that's going to be built. Did you read the ruling at all? They are taking hoems to build homes that they find suitable because they will get higher tax revenues. If you think that is right then just come out and say what you are........don't hide.......it's either a communist where everything is state property or you're just not as smart as you act like you are.


How can you say that this ruling is OK when only you and a hardcore communist, who has no perspective of private property, could think so.

People who come on websites and say they are studying to be a lawyer and then says something so overtly wrong about a judicial decision should get called out.

This is NOT ABOUT STATE'S RIGHTS.

 

I agree. I commented earlier on where was the realtor lobby on this because it would seem that they stand to lose a ton of money over the long haul. How can someone hold out for more money if the gov can just take whatever land they want for fair market value?

 

You still haven't answered how what I wrote pertains to state's rights. State's right's is what Scalia uses when he doesn't want to even hear a case. State's rights comes up when nothing in the US Constitution applies to the state's court's ruling.

Every case brought before the US Supreme Court comes from a state court somewhere so every case is a state case......that has gone through state courts, state Supreme Courts and federal courts if applicable. That doesn't mean every case is a state's right case because the court votes to affirm the lower court. A dissent or affirmation it's based on the US Constitution and precendent with the courts. This time, in effect they rewrote the 5th Amendment and said TAKINGS applies to PRIVATE USE also.....not just PUBLIC USE........and you think as a legal scholar that the Supreme Court can rewrite the law?

 

You said it yourself, the Supreme Court affirmed the state courts ruling using the 5th Amendment, which i believe was a smoke screen. The 5th Amendment reads - nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The 5th Amendment says nothing of private use, which I believe the court left up to the state court decide. The supreme court simply used the 5th to cover up the fact that it didn't want to step on a state's right to progress at the expense of some citizens private property.

 

you my good man, are the one who needs to read up on the legal system, state court cases can only be brought before the Supreme Court in matters of diversity of jurisdiction when the damages sought are over 75k or Federal question.