- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Monument Litigation (For OT Lawyers)
Posted on 12/29/15 at 2:32 pm
Posted on 12/29/15 at 2:32 pm
OT Lawyers for those of you who have read the pleadings in the monument litigation are there any real chances of success in stopping the removal. I am not interested in a debate on the merits of should they be removed or not but more in the chances of the success in litigation. I'd love to see Mitch Landrieu slapped down by Barbier as Landrieu apparently thinks he's the second coming of Napoleon. Barbier is normally a no bullshite kind of guy so it could be interesting in Mitch tries to speak through the press if this drags on.
Also, while unrelated, the ruling by the U.S Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit which decided that the banning of disparaging trademarks violated the First Amendment is interesting to say the least.
Also, while unrelated, the ruling by the U.S Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit which decided that the banning of disparaging trademarks violated the First Amendment is interesting to say the least.
This post was edited on 12/29/15 at 3:19 pm
8
Posted on 12/29/15 at 3:06 pm to LSU5508
quote:
are there any real chances of success in stopping the removal.
I'm not a lawyer, but there's obviously very little chance at stopping the removal.
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 was never intended to keep places protected forever against the wishes of their host communities. There have been over 1700 removals from the National Register, including something as massive and historic as Pennsylvania Station in Manhattan, which occupied 28 acres. The Act was intended to assist in preservation, not in permanently supplanting the governmental exigencies of a community.
This post was edited on 12/29/15 at 3:09 pm
Posted on 12/29/15 at 3:11 pm to Rex
I'm a lawyer and I have no idea.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 3:38 pm to LSU5508
Do you think we could freeze Mitch in Carbonite and replace one of the monuments with him? Maybe something on ground level that is within easy reach of spray paint cans, toilet paper? Something like that?
Posted on 12/29/15 at 3:48 pm to uptownsage
quote:
freeze Mitch in Carbonite and replace one of the monuments with him
I find that offensive.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 5:35 pm to FearTheFish
And
Posted on 12/29/15 at 5:49 pm to LSU5508
Do the plaintiffs even have standing?
Posted on 12/29/15 at 5:54 pm to theronswanson
I find it funny they applied for the Robert E Lee and Beauregard statues to be added to the National Registry within the last 20 years
Posted on 12/29/15 at 6:30 pm to LSU5508
The city will move quickly to have them removed. Unless there is some sort of legal barricade put up, the statues will be removed before citizens have a say.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 6:38 pm to saderade
quote:
I find it funny they applied for the Robert E Lee and Beauregard statues to be added to the National Registry within the last 20 years
Why so? Places/things much older are getting added present day.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 9:21 pm to Havoc
quote:
Why so? Places/things much older are getting added present day.
Because it has been offensive since the mid 80s yet they still pushed to get it added.
Political winds have changed in the last 6 months.
This post was edited on 12/29/15 at 9:22 pm
Posted on 12/29/15 at 9:43 pm to Rex
quote:
against the wishes of their host communities.
What does that have to do with this issue?
Posted on 12/29/15 at 10:13 pm to Rex
Except its not the "community", its 6 people
Posted on 12/29/15 at 10:24 pm to theronswanson
quote:
Do the plaintiffs even have standing?
Good question. How does Lujan apply here?
Posted on 12/29/15 at 10:29 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
Because it has been offensive since the mid 80s
Posted on 12/29/15 at 10:48 pm to Rex
quote:
I'm not a lawyer, but there's obviously very little chance at stopping the removal.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 10:51 pm to FearTheFish
quote:
I find that offensive.
Good.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 11:19 pm to Rex
The original Penn Station began demolition in 1963.
Posted on 12/29/15 at 11:21 pm to LSU5508
I think the endgame is to drag it out in the courts until the whole thing blows over politically. I honestly have a hard time believing they will come down, but they could.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News