Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Supreme Court limits rights of property owners

  1. #1

    Thumbs down Supreme Court limits rights of property owners

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday narrowed the rights of property owners in disputes with governments and laid out a formula for determining when landowners are owed compensation in a case involving a vacant lot in Wisconsin on the picturesque St. Croix River.The court decided that government officials can combine separate parcels of private land in determining whether public officials have effectively taken private property through zoning laws and must pay compensation. The ruling could make it harder for property owners to prove compensation claims.

    The justices, in the 5-3 ruling written by conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by the court's four liberals, upheld the use of zoning regulations by Wisconsin to prevent members of the Murr family from selling the vacant lot because the four siblings also owned an adjoining parcel of land.

    More at: https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-c...141500280.html

    Never trust a Kennedy!
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Figures...that $#@! never met a decision that increases government power over property owners that he did not like.

    He was the swing vote that approved the awful Kelo vs. New London decision.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v..._of_New_London
    Last edited by Anti Federalist; 06-24-2017 at 08:53 AM.

  4. #3
    The corrupt Federal Courts can do whatever they want. They can misinterpret the law and misinterpret the Constitution whatever way they choose.

    Christopher Julian a victim of Judge Jackson Kiser's corruption thinks that we need to get rid of sovereign immunity for Government officials, that we need to get rid of complete immunity for Judges, and that we need citizen review boards or some kind of review boards to watch the Judicial system since Judges can rule whatever way they want to at the detriment of America and it's citizens.

  5. #4
    WTF
    Do something Danke

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    WTF
    The Courts can do whatever they want, rule whatever they want. No Congress is there to stop 'em. Congress is corrupt so the Judiciary is corrupt too, and the crooked ole Judges think they are the alpha-males so they can bully every single defendant into submission that is guilty or innocent of whatever.

  7. #6
    In 2004, Murr and her siblings sought to sell one of two parcels of land that had been in the family for decades. Murr's parents bought the land in the 1960s, built a cabin on one parcel, and left the other parcel undeveloped as a long-term investment.
    The family attempted to sell the vacant parcel to pay for renovations to the cabin, but were prevented from doing so by regulations restricting the use of land along rivers like the St. Croix approved by the state in the 1980s, long after the purchase of both lots.
    Those regulations effectively gutted the value of the Murrs' property. The property was appraised at $400,000 before the Murrs tried to sell it. When the family came to the county, now the only eligible buyer, the county offered $40,000.
    Roberts, in his dissenting opinion, stressed that the court's ruling in Murr could allow for "ad hoc, case-specific consideration" of takings claims, thus undermining constitutional protections that should be consistent and predictable for property owners. Meaning more leeway for governments to do what Wisconsin did to the Murrs.
    "The result is that the government's goals shape the playing field," Roberts wrote, "even before the contest over whether the challenged regulation goes 'too far' even gets underway."
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/23/su...o-property-rig

    Don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows

  8. #7
    If there are limitations then it is not a right. It is a privilege that is granted and may be revoked at any time.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    If there are limitations then it is not a right. It is a privilege that is granted and may be revoked at any time.
    It appears our rights are now granted by government. With the eager acceptance of such by the quisling population.
    "The Patriarch"



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    I see it now . County helps themselves at 1/10th the cost .
    Do something Danke



Similar Threads

  1. LePage joins author in blasting limits on property rights
    By TaftFan in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-21-2013, 06:54 PM
  2. Supreme Court Ruling: Victory for Property Owners, Defeat for EPA
    By eduardo89 in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-27-2012, 06:01 PM
  3. Supreme Court Limits Local Gun Bans
    By hillbilly123069 in forum Second Amendment
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-28-2010, 05:57 PM
  4. Supreme Court Limits Bankruptcy Lawyers' 1st Amendment Rights
    By bobbyw24 in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-09-2010, 09:09 AM
  5. Supreme Court Limits Federal Voting Rights Act
    By bobbyw24 in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-09-2009, 09:01 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •