Give it up waggy. You cant reason with a costco shopper. They'll defend costco to the end for low priced electronics, a good return policy and the ability to buy pickle slices by the 5 gallon bucket.
Give it up waggy. You cant reason with a costco shopper. They'll defend costco to the end for low priced electronics, a good return policy and the ability to buy pickle slices by the 5 gallon bucket.
No, I'd blast Costco if they offered those things, and Wal-Mart's flaws. But you are always making a good choice to put words in other people's mouths.
Waggy: I've never looked into the allegations you make against Costco, but if accurate, they sound terrible and disappointing, and it's a bit surprising if they're legal.
Apparently the legislatures approve of it, and the voters approve of the legislatures, though?
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
do a search on them. i was amazed when i started reading about them myself. it rather disgusted me. I have to admit it was not widly talked about until like a year ago. so not many people know about it.
they are the #1 business when it comes to takeing property with ED. most times the property is condmned.
That's the point I was making, whether or this ruling was the 2nd worst ever, or great.
I'm a bit on the fence on it, but lean toward yes, it was acceptable.
I am also against the abuse of eminent domain. You can be against something, and yet for a ruling that it's constitutional.
I do *not* want the Congress to declare tomorrow Rush Limbaugh day, but if the Supreme Court ruled it was constitutional for them to do so, I'd agree with the ruling.
What most of the Kelo critics are upset about, I assume is not that eminent domain was allowable, but that it extended to governmental seizure of private property for private use. The takings clause obviously applies when government takes private property for public use, but it's reasonable to question why government should be able to intervene so blantantly on behalf of private developers. It's disappointing that SCOTUS opened the door to seizure for private gain, no matter what nebulous 'public benefit' might be asserted. If private developers wish to build or develop property they are more than welcome to negotiate with home/property owners either individually or collectively (ie homeowners association), but not to treat people like mere inconveniences and coerce them into a fire sale on their property.
As for what you would propose, that would require a high sophistication amongst jurors than which tend to be exhibited at the present. I'm skeptical that I much less Joe Schmo is able to look at a development project and judge its financial viability. I'm also critical of Kelo's twist on eminent domain because it reminds me all too well of how expansive for decades the Commerce clause was read by SCOTUS to sanction or believed to sanction all kinds of federal activities. Whether or not you agree with the commerce used or attempted to expand the federal govt's authority into civil rights, Gun-Free School Zone Act (which was struck down in US v. Lopez), etc. there had to be limits as a rationale.
As for Bush v. Gore, the equal protection argument was the weakest argument in supporting Bush's decision, which is all I'll say (and a number of critics make this point), aside from Gore's decision to seek recounts in mostly Democratic counties.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Last bit first.
There were two decisions in the B v G. I have to agree with the court and reject Gore's 'voter intent' regardless of method argument. I could not find, however, a universal Florida voting method so recounting could not be absolutely consistent but to the extent of how the chads were deemed counted if there was a dimple in one district to a dislocated chad corner in another to two or three dislocated chad corners in others does not meet my test for equality. That bit was 7/2 and with which I concur for the reasons stated. The other decision ( 5/4 ) on how to remedy is what I think becomes a non issue because there simply was not enough time to remand, get the new consistent method in place and recount all the ballots... It would have gone to Congress without the 27 electoral votes and no majority thus Both houses being Republican Bush wins. Either way it turned out the result would have been the same. I think I felt that way then and/or do now.
Constitutional Law gives me an upset stomach.
I'm very much States Rights.
I don't like the notion that you normal folks can't be finders of fact. It gives me the willies to think our juries in criminal or civil law cases are with out the ability to do what they have done for quite some time now. I accept that they are capable and determined to render justice IF they apply the Law as provided by the court and keep personal bias out of the evidence presented.
The more salient aspect of the taking of private property for private use is somewhat ugly but why it should be up to the people to decide. IF there is a bit of property in an area that the government there wants to convert for pure economic reasons but the folks want a park and can't get a park [private to public], I think it is for them to decide their government got it wrong. This may be a means to that end... I like the people deciding issues all be it more time consuming and costly to perform. The bit about Private to build a shopping complex is more complex
in my thinking. The local area could benefit but for the owner not wanting to sell for what ever reason. I think this too must be fact based and not left to the economic needs the government may see. I sorta agree with the NIMBY aspect of that too. I apologize for lumping you in with the many people I've tried to explain this issue to over the years only to have it fall on deaf ears. No I do not generally try to put words in peoples mouths. I read here continuously but rarely post.
After seeing firsthand the tactics costco used in Tacoma this issue is very close to home.
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
blindly fallowing the rulling is just as bad as blindly being against it.
The spirite of EM was to take land needed for parks, roads, etc. I doubt many here would disagree with that.
The law was not ment to take PRIVATE land and give it to PRIVATE company to make a profite. just becuase the tax bas is higher should NEVER be a reason to take private property.
I do not agree with the SC made a corect or constitutional decision. and yes i would rank it above gore vs Bush.
I saw this.
You would think that this is reason enough to re-visit the decision at the court of idiots.
Thanks. I'd be interested if you have some good links summarizing the problem behaviors of Costco - they are often celebrated as a more progressive retailer for some of their employment policies that are considered better than the others, especially Wal-Mart. Right now, I'm not convinced that's not the case.
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
forbes
WASHINGTON - When Costco wants land for a new warehouse store, it goes to local property owners to make a deal, right? Not necessarily. A new study by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public-interest law firm in Washington, D.C., details more than 10,000 recent cases in which state and local governments have condemned or threatened to condemn property to obtain land for private parties such as Costco.
oh hell its not worth it to to go down the list. so just click this google link
You are then 'rejecting' the Florida Constitution since it calls for voter intent as the standard, as the Florida Supreme Court ruled. How is your position 'states rights' or even defensible in terms of the law? The issue of varying standards for counting is a bogus issue, as that was and is an issue across counties in Florida and most or all other states, but you don't see the Supreme Court calling it a problem for any other situation (hence the 'only applies to this one situation' clause of the ruling).
There was plenty of time to recount the ballots - the only issue was an arbitrary legal deadline that the Supreme Court could easily change given the situation, and a case for why that was the normal legal approach that should have been taken was made ni Vincent Bugliosi's book.
I'm all for a statewide recout - and Gore would have won that, as the media-sponsored recout later showed.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
No, Mr. Clueless, you can't read very well. This has nothing to do with the four counties Gore ended up settling on in his lawsuit, and everything to do with the Supreme Court.
A statewide recount as the Florida Supreme Court wanted should have been done, and had it been, it would have found Gore the winner.
But are you honest enough to admit the election had other flaws that allowed the President's brother to get away with stealing it, such as the inflated 'felon' purges?
First, using the normal quoting is more readable than the bold method. (I had to re-add bolding to sections manually to indicate your quotes below).
You just condemned every election in every state (IIUC).
Different countied do have different standards in every election. Indeed, in some Florida counties (the ones with the most whites) in 2000, for example, voting machines were set to return ballots with errors to be corrected, resulting in very few invalid ballots, while in other counties (with the most blacks/Gore voters) less expensive machines were used that did not return the ballots, and they were later invalidated, resulting in black ballots invalidated 10 times more than white.
How is that 'equal protection'? The point is, those differences exist in every state and every election, but the Supreme Court claimed they are a violation only in one state in one election - cherry-picking. How is that inconsistency - it's always ok and legal and not a constitutional violation of the 14th, except in that one state and one election? It was obviously used as a *pretense*, cooked up by Bush's lawyers and accepted by the court who did the wrong thing, showing their consciousness of guilt not only in the vherry-picking, but in showing how they knew they were cherry-picking and being inconsistent by making the interpretation of the 14th not applicable to any other state an election.
This isn't a friendly 'difference of opinion', it's you failing to be reasonable IMO.
Does the 14th protect voters to equal treatment at the *county* level, as has been the case in every state and election, or at the *state* level (much less the national level, since it is after all a federal amendment)? If you say country, then you are saying the Supreme Court was wrong to say state. If you say state, then why isn't every election in every state, where counties use inconsistent standards, a violation of the 14th, why is their ruling limited to one situation?
Let's put aside the fact that the Republicans sent staffers to Florida to conduct riots to obstruct the recounts, creating threatening mobs.
Accountability? None - they were not punished for their attack on democracy, they were rewarded with positions.
See above on why the equal protection argument is invalid at least on the basis of inconsistency if not worse.
As for the time needed, see the books on the issue like the one I referenced for the case that the deadline could easily have been legally extended.
I'm not sure what Souter comment you are talking about.
I think you are arguing the issue in good faith, but you need to consider the other side a bit more and not just repeat the pro-Bush argument in the case I argued against.
It does sound like we might at least agree that apart from the Bush v. Gore issue, the voter's intent is clear for Gore to have won.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter