For those not aware, replacing Kennedy will make a world of difference on SCOTUS.

QuoteThe Supreme Court constrained the rights of property owners Friday, establishing a test that favors government officials in assessing the loss of property value caused by government regulations.

Writing for a 5-3 court, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that state and local officials can combine separate parcels of land in assessing whether local government has effectively seized private property through regulation, requiring compensation. Kennedy's opinion was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts filed a fiery dissent, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

The case concerned a Wisconsin family called the Murrs, who argued that the government has unconstitutionally taken their land by refusing to allow them to sell it.

We all live under the equal protection and distribution of law, where buying property as an investment with the understanding that the law won't change at whim, but it did for the Murr family.

QuoteThe Murr family owns two pieces of property on the St. Croix River in Wisconsin. They attempted to sell one of their waterfront lots (called "Lot E") to finance improvements to a cabin they own on the second plot (called "Lot F"). The value of Lot E had been assessed at $400,000. Environmental officials blocked the sale for violating conservation rules. A county board further declared that state law required the two lots be merged into a single piece of property that could not be broken up and sold in smaller parcels.

Here, the court contradicts itself:

QuoteThe Supreme Court has previously established that regulations of property which are too burdensome should be recognized as unconstitutional takings. However, the Court has also said that a taking only occurs when an owner's entire property interest has been subjected to burdensome regulations.The Supreme Court has previously established that regulations of property which are too burdensome should be recognized as unconstitutional takings. However, the Court has also said that a taking only occurs when an owner's entire property interest has been subjected to burdensome regulations.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/23/supreme-court-limits-rights-of-property-owners/

Quote from: Solar on June 26, 2017, 06:11:19 AM
For those not aware, replacing Kennedy will make a world of difference on SCOTUS.

We all live under the equal protection and distribution of law, where buying property as an investment with the understanding that the law won't change at whim, but it did for the Murr family.

Here, the court contradicts itself:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/23/supreme-court-limits-rights-of-property-owners/

"For those not aware, replacing Kennedy will make a world of difference on SCOTUS."

You are 1005 absolutely correct. Kennedy has been a true swing vote. Sure, he sided with the law and conservatives on some cases, but he is no conservative.

Quote from: supsalemgr on June 26, 2017, 07:46:42 AM
"For those not aware, replacing Kennedy will make a world of difference on SCOTUS."

You are 1005 absolutely correct. Kennedy has been a true swing vote. Sure, he sided with the law and conservatives on some cases, but he is no conservative.

Yeah, never understood why Reagan appointed his worthless ass.
He was a law prof at the local law school down the street from where I grew up in Sacto. I knew some of the students in his class, they all said the same thing, he was too emotional for the slot on SCOTUS, he had a tendency to rule in favor of changing times as opposed to following the Constitution, in other words, a big govt leftist, or as we've come to know them, as RINO.

I really didn't think much of it at the time because we had yet to feel the oppressive fist of big govt as we have today.
I hope Trump appoints a better lot of judges than his predecessors.

Quote from: Solar on June 26, 2017, 08:01:30 AM
Yeah, never understood why Reagan appointed his worthless ass.
He was a law prof at the local law school down the street from where I grew up in Sacto. I knew some of the students in his class, they all said the same thing, he was too emotional for the slot on SCOTUS, he had a tendency to rule in favor of changing times as opposed to following the Constitution, in other words, a big govt leftist, or as we've come to know them, as RINO.

I really didn't think much of it at the time because we had yet to feel the oppressive fist of big govt as we have today.
I hope Trump appoints a better lot of judges than his predecessors.

Like Souter and Roberts?

Quote from: supsalemgr on June 26, 2017, 09:18:53 AM
Like Souter and Roberts?

How about conservatives who make Antonin Scalia look like Thurgood Marshall?

QuoteThe Murr family owns two pieces of property on the St. Croix River in Wisconsin. They attempted to sell one of their waterfront lots (called "Lot E") to finance improvements to a cabin they own on the second plot (called "Lot F"). The value of Lot E had been assessed at $400,000. Environmental officials blocked the sale for violating conservation rules. A county board further declared that state law required the two lots be merged into a single piece of property that could not be broken up and sold in smaller parcels.

It is the result of LIBERALs posing as Conservationists.  In an attempt to preserve the rural areas, if I remember this right, you're not allowed to divide up a property smaller than 10 acres.  The law was an attempt to stop suburban sprawl - reduce the incidences of family farms subdividing and selling-out, because the kids either didn't want to farm, -or- the TAXES would utterly crush them.  ...and that's why our family farm, practically worthless for anything but hilly pasture, is still a farm.  Utterly locked up by the state.  And to think my stupid brother-in-law lobbied to have this put into effect, the best he can do is create a trust and pass it on to his son (who doesn't want it).  He initially thought it was a great idea, because a 500 acre family farm down the road was subdivided and the family dairy farm retired instead of going bankrupt.

Which is another story, through all kinds of stupid over-regulation, the family dairy farmers, barely making a living, were forced to make expensive investments and/or expand their business to cover the new costs of regulation.  Put another way...

Let's say a husband and wife (farm) can milk 60 cows and live comfortably.  Along comes milk price supports, -and- the requirement for pipeline milking, not any old kind, but government registered (etc) types.   The cost is 2-3 years profit for the small farm.  The County Agent says, "you can pay this off quicker, if you -expand- your herd, and buy bigger equipment, and pump your cows full of milk enhancing chemicals, switch to 100% corn and quit growing Alfalfa, feed them peanut hulls, sawdust & chicken manure (more and more expenses).
To the farmer, the only "path" is follow what the County Agent says, go into debt, expand and the debt cycle begins.

The farmer gets injured, too warn out to keep farming, his kids see what's happened and because some High School Advisor has said, "get into STEM - farming is beneath you!" - they want nothing to do with the farm.  Thanks to the liberal conservationist, what they've spent their entire lives building, everything they've invested their dollars in - can't be sold, unless the new owners are farmers.  But the value of the farm land alone is in the million$, and who can afford to mortgage that on a business that barely makes $60k a year?   The owner of the farm can't sell, can't lease, maybe rent the tillable acreage for a buck an acre - none of which covers taxes.

So... they plant TREES and become "Tree Farmers", because it reduces the property taxes tremendously.   (that'll be the next law on the books, "thou shalt not clear cut thy property because it looks ugly".)

This is SOCIALISM playing out.  You can own it - but we'll regulate what you can do with it.  What the state is trying to prevent, rural growth, another house being built on a parcel of otherwise worthless river land.... sure it's beautiful to canoe without the banks lined with houses (I have been down it), but that land is worthless 9 months of the year.  thank you liberal conservationist, the Murrs are probably flat broke now.

Funny how those minimum acreage issues go away when big-footprint houses get built by liberals with money. Then they call it a gated community and keep everyone they don't like OUT. Liberal inclusiveness, don'tcha know.

Quote from: quiller on June 26, 2017, 06:49:56 PM
Funny how those minimum acreage issues go away when big-footprint houses get built by liberals with money. Then they call it a gated community and keep everyone they don't like OUT. Liberal inclusiveness, don'tcha know.

Pay enough money to the right people, and they'll throw zoning laws out the window for you!