This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.
My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 7/22/2009 03:38:00 AM
3 Comments:
You are right on this one. Even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn.
Keep in mind that no ruling was made on the eminent-domain issue. Larry is effectively bitching about the fact that the case was dismissed due to the statute of limitations. Which is not surprising, considering his stance on SoL.
>>>>>> Keep in mind that no ruling was made on the eminent-domain issue. <<<<<<
No, actually, a ruling was made on the eminent domain issue, and I disagree with that ruling, too -- the appeals court opinion says,
Moreover, even if Appellants' claims were not time-barred, to the extent that they assert that the Takings Clause prevents the State from condemning their property for a private use within a redevelopment district, regardless of whether they have been provided with just compensation, the recent Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct.
2655 (2005), obliges us to conclude that they have articulated no basis upon which relief can be granted. See id. at 2668 ("Just as we decline to second-guess the City's considered judgments about the efficacy of its development plan, we also decline to second-guess the City's determinations as to what lands it needs to acquire in order to effectuate the project."); see also Rosenthal & Rosenthal Inc. v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 771 F.2d 44, 46 (2d Cir. 1985). Finally, we agree with the district court that Appellees' voluntary attempts to resolve Appellants' demands was neither an unconstitutional exaction in the form of extortion nor an equal protection violation.
>>>>>> Larry is effectively bitching about the fact that the case was dismissed due to the statute of limitations. Which is not surprising, considering his stance on SoL. <<<<<<
I am not against the idea of statutes of limitations -- I just think that court decisions on SoL's should be fair (of course). And I think that the courts should be generous in granting "equitable tolling" (the delay or extension of SoL deadlines for reasons of fairness). In Didden, the courts dismissed the case on the basis of the expiration of the SoL for a cause of action -- the finding of public purpose -- that the plaintiffs did not pursue (in fact, the plaintiffs claimed that their proposed CVS pharmacy satisfied the public purpose)! Or alternatively, if the courts insisted on allowing the plaintiffs just one SoL, the courts should have granted equitable tolling.
Post a Comment
<< Home