re: SCOTUS day - 3 boxes per SCOTUSBLOG

quote:

---

I don't know. I hope so. If so, that would portend good news.



The fricking GOP appointees stuck together on siomething?

---

If it does work out this way, then maybe John Thune will take note of how it's supposed to work (Sadly, I'm joking about Thune).

quote:

---

I have a feeling that SCOTUS is going to say Trump's birthright citizenship EO is unconstitutional.

---

Meaning they are cowards. The Law as written was intended fir one purpose only, to give slaves citizenship, we have the guys writing who wrote it, its not a hard question, but just like with Obamacare, Roberts will do everything he can to make sure he doesn't upset the applecart. He is a political coward. He has an advocate in that female conservative who is Catholic and pro adoption to the nth degree.

They all know it was never in the constitution, but Judges get to run our country, it seems, not we the people.

On the other hand after the Abortion vote, and the guy trying to off Kavanaugh, could they try and send out an opposite take, then decide the merits later on, (which they always do to a point) so no crazed loon will be a threat unto them? who knows. I mean, I would not want to send any clear messages on controversial cases if I were on the court, way ahead of the decision. Maybe its the last case, on the last day, and they decide t get out of town. The truth is everyone in the USA knows Trump is correct on this. The writers have papers says exactly what they intended.

quote:

---

Meaning they are cowards. The Law as written was intended fir one purpose only, to give slaves citizenship,

---

Correct, the problem is the stupid people we elect to represent us. They write this stuff in a way that is is vague and open to interpretation. They did this 200 years ago and still do it today.

Why wasnt that amendment written to say something like: We give all former slaves and any subsequent children born in America, citizenship into these united states.

But no, these idiots write it in a way that always gets "interpreted" in other ways.

To our elected representatives: Be explicit in what you are trying to accomplish dumbasses.

quote:

---

Held:
1. The proper baseline for measuring “just compensation” following
a tax sale is the auction sale price, not the property’s hypothetical fair
market value, at least when the sale is fairly conducted in light of the
country’s history of tax sales

---

That's fricking gross.

You referenced the general scheme of tax sales, which I wasn't commenting on.

The government being able to seize property and not ensure FMV valuation should be considered a taking. I don't care if this puts a burden on the government, as they're the one engaged in the taking. The fact that the opinion argues this could lead to the government getting less is farcical, considering the argument is they should have ensure it sold for more.

We should not permit our Constitution to permit our various forms of government to more easily steal property from citizens. It should be a difficult road and a heavy burden on government.

I’ve always thought when the border patrol tears a car apart at check points, doesn’t find anything, and then doesn’t put it back together like they found it should be considered a taking. The car is not as worth as much with car seats not in it.

I agree with this that the police should have to pay to put that stuff back together.

Exactly. We went nearly 2 centuries during which time people were easily able to figure that out.

quote:

---

We went nearly 2 centuries during which time people were easily able to figure that out.

---

Wait...what? Which 2 centuries?