Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: ITT we list cases that we think were wrongly decided  (Read 3451 times)

obamacon

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3156
    • View Profile
Re: ITT we list cases that we think were wrongly decided
« Reply #10 on: May 07, 2007, 12:39:05 AM »
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish

Lampshade Punk

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1010
  • "Even in the quietest moments."
    • View Profile
Re: ITT we list cases that we think were wrongly decided
« Reply #11 on: May 07, 2007, 12:50:08 AM »
Kelo v. City of New London.  July, 2005. 

I think public use is pretty much a dead letter.

can you say this differently.  its been a LONG weekend.  thank you.

Well, okay, briefly, because I have an exam in about nine hours.  Basically, if you disagree with Kelo, you're disagreeing with one of three things:

1. The notion of eminent domain power in general (that is, you value the sanctity of private property over government uses);
2. Using the power of eminent domain to transfer property from one private landholder to another; or
3. Using the power of eminent domain for projects that are not reasonably understood as "public uses."

Me, I disagree with Kelo because it basically trashes the public use requirement of the Takings Clause by shifting it to public purpose, and then again allowing a vague promise of economic benefits to stand in for a legitimate public purpose (Thomas wrote a decent dissent on this point).  My point, I guess, was that by taking this case up, the libertarian hacks at the Institute for Justice really screwed us over.  They should have known this court wouldn't do well on the public use question, and they made bad law.  At this point, I think it will be nearly impossible to challenge any proposed taking based upon the public use (as opposed to the just compensation) requirement.

Thank you. 

John Blackthorne

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2112
    • View Profile
Re: ITT we list cases that we think were wrongly decided
« Reply #12 on: May 07, 2007, 12:53:22 AM »
Kelo v. City of New London.  July, 2005. 

I think public use is pretty much a dead letter.

can you say this differently.  its been a LONG weekend.  thank you.

Well, okay, briefly, because I have an exam in about nine hours.  Basically, if you disagree with Kelo, you're disagreeing with one of three things:

1. The notion of eminent domain power in general (that is, you value the sanctity of private property over government uses);
2. Using the power of eminent domain to transfer property from one private landholder to another; or
3. Using the power of eminent domain for projects that are not reasonably understood as "public uses."

Me, I disagree with Kelo because it basically trashes the public use requirement of the Takings Clause by shifting it to public purpose, and then again allowing a vague promise of economic benefits to stand in for a legitimate public purpose (Thomas wrote a decent dissent on this point).  My point, I guess, was that by taking this case up, the libertarian hacks at the Institute for Justice really screwed us over.  They should have known this court wouldn't do well on the public use question, and they made bad law.  At this point, I think it will be nearly impossible to challenge any proposed taking based upon the public use (as opposed to the just compensation) requirement.

I disagree with two and three, i think they go hand in hand.  Even though I don't like one, I understand that it is necessary in certain cases as long as the taking is for what I consider a public use. 
"I only eat inorganic foods. If it doesn't contain molybdenum or something from the noble gases, I'm just not interested"-- Lyle McDonald

ericptk2000

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
  • MSU' 10
    • View Profile
    • LSN
Re: ITT we list cases that we think were wrongly decided
« Reply #13 on: May 07, 2007, 12:56:04 AM »
Although a 0L, I would have to say Plessy!!
Bumpersticker and Laptop (Attending): MSU '10
Bumpersticker (In): Pitt, Case($), MSU($$$$), Loyola, Cincinnatti($), Toledo ($$$$)
I'm sorry can you hold (WL): American
Dropped call (OUT): OSU

Brito

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2465
    • AOL Instant Messenger - ViolaLovesMusic
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: ITT we list cases that we think were wrongly decided
« Reply #14 on: May 07, 2007, 01:08:32 AM »

Marbury v. Madison

I once argued this in a debate round.  My partner and I thought we were so very bold.
Harvard 2010

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: ITT we list cases that we think were wrongly decided
« Reply #15 on: May 07, 2007, 01:52:13 AM »
Marbury v. Madison

Wow, for serious?

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish

Surprise me sometime, will you?

2. Using the power of eminent domain to transfer property from one private landholder to another; or
3. Using the power of eminent domain for projects that are not reasonably understood as "public uses."

I disagree with two and three, i think they go hand in hand.  Even though I don't like one, I understand that it is necessary in certain cases as long as the taking is for what I consider a public use. 

I disagree.  Given the extent to which essentially public functions are privatized in our economy, I can imagine lots of public uses that would involve transfers from one private landholder to another.  I am thinking primarily of hospitals and infrastructure (railroads, highways). 
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

Judge Smails

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 127
  • Nulli Secundus
    • View Profile
Re: ITT we list cases that we think were wrongly decided
« Reply #16 on: May 07, 2007, 01:53:53 AM »
Cause you all know so much about the law.


tards

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: ITT we list cases that we think were wrongly decided
« Reply #17 on: May 07, 2007, 01:58:54 AM »
Cause you all know so much about the law.


tards

At least I wasn't that asswipe who answered the question with the demagogical sweep of "anything that involves penumbras."
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

Judge Smails

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 127
  • Nulli Secundus
    • View Profile
Re: ITT we list cases that we think were wrongly decided
« Reply #18 on: May 07, 2007, 02:00:30 AM »
Yes, you're one of the tards that used your deep-seated knowledge of the cases and issues involved to render a meaningful decision.


Get the @#!* out of here.

ErwinChemerinsky

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: ITT we list cases that we think were wrongly decided
« Reply #19 on: May 07, 2007, 02:00:47 AM »
Cause you all know so much about the law.


tards

At least I wasn't that asswipe who answered the question with the demagogical sweep of "anything that involves penumbras."

Also, the idea of "penumbras and emanations" has been used ONCE in Constitutional Law history.
HLS '10