Supreme Court Rejects Arena Critics' Appeal

[GMJ]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>

Supreme Court Rejects Arena Critics’ Appeal
June 23, 2008, 10:51 am In the latest and the most devastating defeat for critics of the Nets’ new arena, the US Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant a hearing on their appeal of lower court rulings favoring Bruce Ratner. The Court rejected the appeal without comment. Critics had hoped the Court would revisit its big eminent domain decision from 2005. The decision is likely to clear the way for ground breaking later this year.

Court won't review NBA Nets arena project - - AP

High Court won't hear appeal on Atlantic Yards - Sewell Chan - New York Times</div>

So you can all breathe easy, or have another reason to hate on this team

 

[AEM]

There was no reason for the Supreme Court to hear this case. Like it or not, <u>Kelo </u>is controlling, and the present facts don't indicate any useful grounds on which to rule.

 

[Claud]

Nice Im glad this is outta of the way... No we can begin building!

 

[BrooklynBound]

The court is wrong. Defend freedom, not corporate welfare.

 

[Claud]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jun 23 2008, 07:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The court is wrong. Defend freedom, not corporate welfare.</div>

Lol

 

[BrooklynBound]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Claud @ Jun 24 2008, 12:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jun 23 2008, 07:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The court is wrong. Defend freedom, not corporate welfare.</div>

Lol

</div>
You disagree?

 

[AEM]

It's not that simple. There's no reason for the Court to hear the case when it's just decided <u>Kelo v. City of New London</u>

 

[Denny Crane]

Seems to me it's a matter for the NBA and the land owners to decide.

Good decision, IMO.

 

[BrooklynBound]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 24 2008, 07:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's not that simple. There's no reason for the Court to hear the case when it's just decided <u>Kelo v. City of New London</u></div>
I know, Kelo is extremely wrong.

 

[BrooklynBound]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 24 2008, 08:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Seems to me it's a matter for the NBA and the land owners to decide.

Good decision, IMO.</div>
How are the landowners deciding? The state is forcing them into a transaction and giving welfare to a corporation.

 

[AEM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jun 24 2008, 09:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 24 2008, 07:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's not that simple. There's no reason for the Court to hear the case when it's just decided <u>Kelo v. City of New London</u></div>
I know, Kelo is extremely wrong.
</div>

I agree on jurisprudential grounds that Kelo was completely wrong - but the only ways it'll get overturned are either a) the Court is readjusted considerably or b) a case arises wherein the facts are near-perfect to support overturning <u>Kelo</u>.

 

[SportsTicker]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jun 24 2008, 08:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 24 2008, 07:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's not that simple. There's no reason for the Court to hear the case when it's just decided <u>Kelo v. City of New London</u></div>
I know, Kelo is extremely wrong.
</div>

Kelo is extremely right under the Constitution as interpreted by the US Supreme Court. I have fully enjoyed the saga of the critics, who seem to think poorly constructed legal arguments and blogging can substitute for organizing political support, or failing that, attempting a compromise. They would make good fascists.

 

[AEM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ Jun 24 2008, 09:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jun 24 2008, 08:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 24 2008, 07:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's not that simple. There's no reason for the Court to hear the case when it's just decided <u>Kelo v. City of New London</u></div>
I know, Kelo is extremely wrong.
</div>

Kelo is extremely right under the Constitution as interpreted by the US Supreme Court. I have fully enjoyed the saga of the critics, who seem to think poorly constructed legal arguments and blogging can substitute for organizing political support, or failing that, attempting a compromise. They would make good fascists.
</div>

<u>Kelo </u>is contrary to the Constitution, regardless of the fact that it is precedential law.

The further complication in this case is that I'm not all that sure that the critics would win this case even without <u>Kelo</u>.

 

[BrooklynBound]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ Jun 24 2008, 08:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jun 24 2008, 08:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 24 2008, 07:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's not that simple. There's no reason for the Court to hear the case when it's just decided <u>Kelo v. City of New London</u></div>
I know, Kelo is extremely wrong.
</div>

Kelo is extremely right under the Constitution as interpreted by the US Supreme Court. I have fully enjoyed the saga of the critics, who seem to think poorly constructed legal arguments and blogging can substitute for organizing political support, or failing that, attempting a compromise. They would make good fascists.
</div>
And the US Supreme Court is wrong. They are not infallible. Simply ruling on a case does not make it correct.

Forcing property owners to sell their land at below market values so that a corporation gets a sweeter deal is wrong. Always. If Ratner wants to develop the land, he is free to do so. But he should have to buy out every landowner at market values and not a penny less.

I support property rights. How does that make me fascist? You've gotta be kidding me with this one. Do you always just carelessly throw out ill-informed labels like this?

 

[SportsTicker]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jun 24 2008, 08:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 24 2008, 08:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Seems to me it's a matter for the NBA and the land owners to decide.

Good decision, IMO.</div>
How are the landowners deciding? The state is forcing them into a transaction and giving welfare to a corporation.
</div>

SO naive. EVERY eminent domain taking benefits private parties, either directly or indirectly. Condemn land for a highway and adjoining properties owners (sometime with political connections) get a benefit. Grant an easement for a sewer or water line and those whose properties are served get the benefit of amenities and higher property values. In a town where we have a summer place the county decided to extend the water and sewer lines to just beyond where one of the political party bosses built a new house. At least in the case of Ratner, no one is attempting to mask the beneficiary.

It's called economic development. It works. If Ratner doesn't build, the result will be an eyesore that NO builder is going to want to take a risk on. Ratner will put the Nets up for sale to the highest bidder in an attempt to recoup his losses and there is NO way to be certain that bidder will be someone from the New York-New Jersey area. In fact, the opposite is true.

I find these arguments silly and absent the one argument that matters to the city and state: New York is in competition not with New Jersey, but with London, Shanghai, Dubai, Mumbai and even Moscow. There is NO better location outside Manhattan for high density development, with its proximity to the financial district (8 minutes by subway) and mass transit access (10 subway lines, the LIRR and possible JFK high speed line).

 

[Dumpy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ Jun 24 2008, 08:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jun 24 2008, 08:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 24 2008, 08:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Seems to me it's a matter for the NBA and the land owners to decide.

Good decision, IMO.</div>
How are the landowners deciding? The state is forcing them into a transaction and giving welfare to a corporation.
</div>

SO naive. EVERY eminent domain taking benefits private parties, either directly or indirectly. Condemn land for a highway and adjoining properties owners (sometime with political connections) get a benefit. Grant an easement for a sewer or water line and those whose properties are served get the benefit of amenities and higher property values. In a town where we have a summer place the county decided to extend the water and sewer lines to just beyond where one of the political party bosses built a new house. At least in the case of Ratner, no one is attempting to mask the beneficiary.

It's called economic development. It works. If Ratner doesn't build, the result will be an eyesore that NO builder is going to want to take a risk on. Ratner will put the Nets up for sale to the highest bidder in an attempt to recoup his losses and there is NO way to be certain that bidder will be someone from the New York-New Jersey area. In fact, the opposite is true.

I find these arguments silly and absent the one argument that matters to the city and state: New York is in competition not with New Jersey, but with London, Shanghai, Dubai, Mumbai and even Moscow. There is NO better location outside Manhattan for high density development, with its proximity to the financial district (8 minutes by subway) and mass transit access (10 subway lines, the LIRR and possible JFK high speed line).
</div>

The next thing you know, you'll be trying to convince us that a JD degree and a still-wet bar membership card doesn't make a 25-year-old into a constitutional law expert. We all know that isn't the case. Silly you.

 

[AEM]

^ Are you saying John Yoo was wrong?

 

[AEM]

Incidentally, has anyone else read Judge Posner's take on Kelo? He's the brain to pick if one wants analysis separate from jurisprudential leanings.

 

[BrooklynBound]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ Jun 24 2008, 08:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jun 24 2008, 08:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 24 2008, 08:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Seems to me it's a matter for the NBA and the land owners to decide.

Good decision, IMO.</div>
How are the landowners deciding? The state is forcing them into a transaction and giving welfare to a corporation.
</div>

SO naive. EVERY eminent domain taking benefits private parties, either directly or indirectly. Condemn land for a highway and adjoining properties owners (sometime with political connections) get a benefit. Grant an easement for a sewer or water line and those whose properties are served get the benefit of amenities and higher property values. In a town where we have a summer place the county decided to extend the water and sewer lines to just beyond where one of the political party bosses built a new house. At least in the case of Ratner, no one is attempting to mask the beneficiary.

It's called economic development. It works. If Ratner doesn't build, the result will be an eyesore that NO builder is going to want to take a risk on. Ratner will put the Nets up for sale to the highest bidder in an attempt to recoup his losses and there is NO way to be certain that bidder will be someone from the New York-New Jersey area. In fact, the opposite is true.

I find these arguments silly and absent the one argument that matters to the city and state: New York is in competition not with New Jersey, but with London, Shanghai, Dubai, Mumbai and even Moscow. There is NO better location outside Manhattan for high density development, with its proximity to the financial district (8 minutes by subway) and mass transit access (10 subway lines, the LIRR and possible JFK high speed line).
</div>
Economic development is cool. And it works sometimes. Not always - hence why projects carry risk.

I'm all for things being developed, but there's no justification for circumventing the market and having the state abuse its power for "the greater good." The landowners have the right to sell their land at market values, not lower. If Ratner wants the land, he should pay for it at market values. Anything less is corporate welfare.

 

[Dumpy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 24 2008, 08:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ Are you saying John Yoo was wrong?</div>

I don't know what John Yoo said about this, and I don't really care. Of course, I know hundreds of current and former government attorneys--many in very senior positions in this administration--and so I'm naturally skeptical about their positions when I hear them. Everyone has an agenda. Never, ever forget that. Be cynical about everything, and always try to ask yourself what someone's angle is.

 

[AEM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jun 24 2008, 09:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 24 2008, 08:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ Are you saying John Yoo was wrong?</div>

I don't know what John Yoo said about this, and I don't really care. Of course, I know hundreds of current and former government attorneys--many in very senior positions in this administration--and so I'm naturally skeptical about their positions when I hear them. Everyone has an agenda. Never, ever forget that. Be cynical about everything, and always try to ask yourself what someone's angle is.
</div>

Eh, I'm not aware of his saying anything about <u>Kelo</u>, but referring obliquely to his relative experience when he was counsel to the Judiciary Committee... Probably should have put a smiley face there to indicate.

At any rate, my issue with <u>Kelo </u>is on purely Constitutional grounds. Despite that, I still don't think that it's necessary here regardless. It just doesn't make any sense for the Court to hear this case when it just decided <u>Kelo </u>a few years ago and neither the Court's makeup nor the facts could conceivably support a reversal.

 

[Chutney]

I honestly didn't know about this issue. Very very interesting.

The fascist claim made me laugh though. If anything, supporting complete disregard for market values is closer to fascism (not that anyone's remotely close to such an extreme level).

 

[Dumpy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 24 2008, 08:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jun 24 2008, 09:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 24 2008, 08:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ Are you saying John Yoo was wrong?</div>

I don't know what John Yoo said about this, and I don't really care. Of course, I know hundreds of current and former government attorneys--many in very senior positions in this administration--and so I'm naturally skeptical about their positions when I hear them. Everyone has an agenda. Never, ever forget that. Be cynical about everything, and always try to ask yourself what someone's angle is.
</div>

Eh, I'm not aware of his saying anything about <u>Kelo</u>, but referring obliquely to his relative experience when he was counsel to the Judiciary Committee... Probably should have put a smiley face there to indicate.

At any rate, my issue with <u>Kelo </u>is on purely Constitutional grounds. Despite that, I still don't think that it's necessary here regardless. It just doesn't make any sense for the Court to hear this case when it just decided <u>Kelo </u>a few years ago and neither the Court's makeup nor the facts could conceivably support a reversal.
</div>

Now that is undoubtedly true. One thing that is often worth explaining to people is that the Supreme Court is not required to take appeals; they get to pick and choose among many hundreds of cases to find those that are the most interesting for one of a variety of reasons.

I truly respect your interest in all these legal issues. It's important (and it is something that I don't have, to be honest). But there are no absolute rights and wrongs, just opinions. To say that "Case X was decided incorrectly" does an injustice to both the legal system and the readers. If you've ever served as a judicial clerk, you would know that you get inundated with factual information and legal arguments, and it is often difficult to pare it down to the one kernal of truth that will decide a case. To say that a case was decided incorrectly like it is an obvious, unassailable position, is just misleading, unfair, and manipulative--and serves to just create the impression that you have your own agenda. It's counterproductive.

Best,

Dumpy

 

[AEM]

^ It is true that every shade of gray comes into play in a case like this (or <u>Kelo</u>). Nor is it, in fact, the area of Constitutional Law for which I've been gaining some recognition - though it interests me as an application of general Court politicking in relation to jurisprudence, especially with Kennedy providing the tie-breaking vote and a concurrence besides. However, depending on how the makeup of the Court changes in the near future, <u>Kelo </u>could well get overruled - though it could end up being another <u>Wickard </u>(shudder).

In terms of calling a case correctly/incorrectly decided, since I am not a clerk but involved in other areas of the law, it most certainly is part of the applicable 'style' to argue on a persuasive level when trying to make a point. Were I explaining the issue, rather than making a pointed observation, my wordage would obviously reflect that. In cases like these, however, a more strident approach obtains a better response - which should better clarify the issues involved in both cases. About the only tactic I won't resort to in cases like these, is personally attacking others.

 

[Dumpy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 24 2008, 09:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ It is true that every shade of gray comes into play in a case like this (or <u>Kelo</u>). Nor is it, in fact, the area of Constitutional Law for which I've been gaining some recognition - though it interests me as an application of general Court politicking in relation to jurisprudence, especially with Kennedy providing the tie-breaking vote and a concurrence besides. However, depending on how the makeup of the Court changes in the near future, <u>Kelo </u>could well get overruled - though it could end up being another <u>Wickard </u>(shudder).

In terms of calling a case correctly/incorrectly decided, since I am not a clerk but involved in other areas of the law, it most certainly is part of the applicable 'style' to argue on a persuasive level when trying to make a point. Were I explaining the issue, rather than making a pointed observation, my wordage would obviously reflect that. In cases like these, however, a more strident approach obtains a better response - which should better clarify the issues involved in both cases. About the only tactic I won't resort to in cases like these, is personally attacking others.</div>

see, that's where I disagree. To me, your argument would be far more effective if it was phrased as "I think X was decided wrong, and here's why." Quite frankly, I've long forgotten everything I learned regarding constitutional law or criminal procedure, and, as I have no interest or time to read law review articles or 700-page books, I'd welcome the opportunity to read a short, four-sentence blurb on what a case stood for and why you think it was in error. As is, I don't understand three quarters of what you write, because I don't have any context, and I haven't the time nor the energy to research it myself. Not to mention an overly-cynical view of the way Washington operates right now. Just something to think about in the future.

Best,

Dumpy

 

[AEM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jun 24 2008, 10:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 24 2008, 09:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ It is true that every shade of gray comes into play in a case like this (or <u>Kelo</u>). Nor is it, in fact, the area of Constitutional Law for which I've been gaining some recognition - though it interests me as an application of general Court politicking in relation to jurisprudence, especially with Kennedy providing the tie-breaking vote and a concurrence besides. However, depending on how the makeup of the Court changes in the near future, <u>Kelo </u>could well get overruled - though it could end up being another <u>Wickard </u>(shudder).

In terms of calling a case correctly/incorrectly decided, since I am not a clerk but involved in other areas of the law, it most certainly is part of the applicable 'style' to argue on a persuasive level when trying to make a point. Were I explaining the issue, rather than making a pointed observation, my wordage would obviously reflect that. In cases like these, however, a more strident approach obtains a better response - which should better clarify the issues involved in both cases. About the only tactic I won't resort to in cases like these, is personally attacking others.</div>

see, that's where I disagree. To me, your argument would be far more effective if it was phrased as "I think X was decided wrong, and here's why." Quite frankly, I've long forgotten everything I learned regarding constitutional law or criminal procedure, and, as I have no interest or time to read law review articles or 700-page books, I'd welcome the opportunity to read a short, four-sentence blurb on what a case stood for and why you think it was in error. As is, I don't understand three quarters of what you write, because I don't have any context, and I haven't the time nor the energy to research it myself. Not to mention an overly-cynical view of the way Washington operates right now. Just something to think about in the future.

Best,

Dumpy
</div>

It would seem that we have a stylistic disjunct then. Though I should mention that I generally don't have the energy to fill in all the context myself, unless it's an area that I'm actually specializing in. In those areas, I actually get paid to read and absorb as much as humanly possible (talk about a dream job for me). This, again, is not quite one of them, except indirectly as it pertains to the Court's ideological makeup or in historical context.

The cynicism part I can agree with categorically.

 

[Dumpy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 24 2008, 09:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jun 24 2008, 10:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 24 2008, 09:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ It is true that every shade of gray comes into play in a case like this (or <u>Kelo</u>). Nor is it, in fact, the area of Constitutional Law for which I've been gaining some recognition - though it interests me as an application of general Court politicking in relation to jurisprudence, especially with Kennedy providing the tie-breaking vote and a concurrence besides. However, depending on how the makeup of the Court changes in the near future, <u>Kelo </u>could well get overruled - though it could end up being another <u>Wickard </u>(shudder).

In terms of calling a case correctly/incorrectly decided, since I am not a clerk but involved in other areas of the law, it most certainly is part of the applicable 'style' to argue on a persuasive level when trying to make a point. Were I explaining the issue, rather than making a pointed observation, my wordage would obviously reflect that. In cases like these, however, a more strident approach obtains a better response - which should better clarify the issues involved in both cases. About the only tactic I won't resort to in cases like these, is personally attacking others.</div>

see, that's where I disagree. To me, your argument would be far more effective if it was phrased as "I think X was decided wrong, and here's why." Quite frankly, I've long forgotten everything I learned regarding constitutional law or criminal procedure, and, as I have no interest or time to read law review articles or 700-page books, I'd welcome the opportunity to read a short, four-sentence blurb on what a case stood for and why you think it was in error. As is, I don't understand three quarters of what you write, because I don't have any context, and I haven't the time nor the energy to research it myself. Not to mention an overly-cynical view of the way Washington operates right now. Just something to think about in the future.

Best,

Dumpy
</div>

It would seem that we have a stylistic disjunct then. Though I should mention that I generally don't have the energy to fill in all the context myself, unless it's an area that I'm actually specializing in. In those areas, I actually get paid to read and absorb as much as humanly possible (talk about a dream job for me). This, again, is not quite one of them, except indirectly as it pertains to the Court's ideological makeup or in historical context.

The cynicism part I can agree with categorically.
</div>

enjoy it while you can. once you have kids, the ability to read and absorb quickly dissipates.

 

[AEM]

^ Two young cats are more than enough for me, at present.

 

[Real]

Even if this case was somehow granted Certiorari, it wouldn't be a good result. The majority five who decided Kelo are all still on the court. (Coincidentially, they are also the five that just ruled in Boumediene)

But as I have said before, the court makeup could change in the next four years with John McCain elected President.

 

[BrooklynBound]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 24 2008, 09:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I honestly didn't know about this issue. Very very interesting.

The fascist claim made me laugh though. If anything, supporting complete disregard for market values is closer to fascism (not that anyone's remotely close to such an extreme level).</div>
Seriously. Naive are those who think that the state won't abuse this power.