Balkinization   |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List                                                                E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts The Supreme Court Term and the Coming Confirmation Process
|
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
The Supreme Court Term and the Coming Confirmation Process
Rick Pildes
[Cross-posted from The Federalist Society Online Debate Series]
Comments:
Is this the rebirth of The Gilded Age - or perhaps The Gelded Age of Congress? Or examples of The Golden Rule?
Are you referring to the Peekaboo case? If so, wouldn't it be extremely misleading to characterize that case as relating to the constitutionality of Sarbanes-Oxley? As I understand it, the case doesn't have anything to do with the government's authority to regulate, just with how the board is appointed.
I also wonder whether the Court will split in either this case or the honest services case along the conservative-liberal line that would help push the narrative you are suggesting (it may, but it strikes me that neither case would necessarily lend itself to such a division). Perhaps we will see a surge of "coffee party" protesters outraged at the application of the vagueness doctrine and the Appointments Clause. I wouldn't bet on it, though.
Skilling is very much alive, Charles, although your outrage is duly noted. Perhaps you are thinking of Ken Lay, another martyr to the liberal agenda of criminalizing criminal conduct.
Not only will they be freeing Skilling, they'll be allowing juveniles to be sentenced to life without parole. And they'll be giving the owners of beachfront cottages the sand that states drag in to counteract erosion.
You mean, as opposed to giving the government the right to convert a beachfront home into an inland home without any compensation, any time it feels like dumping some fill dirt?
Brett:
You mean, as opposed to giving the government the right to convert a beachfront home into an inland home without any compensation, any time it feels like dumping some fill dirt? How about converting a beachfront home to a EPA Super Fund site any time it feels like dumping a few toxic petrochemicals? Cheers,
You mean, as opposed to giving the government the right to convert a beachfront home into an inland home without any compensation, any time it feels like dumping some fill dirt?
# posted by Brett : 12:23 PM Brett, do you have any examples of this? Usually the government only starts filling beaches when the beachfront home owners start screaming because their houses are about to be washed out to sea. In any case, if you want to get some beachfront property, you can probably buy it real cheap on the Gulf coast right now.
Bartbuster, I assume R Friedman was referring to this case. Which is indeed about some beachfront property owners who are objecting to the state nourishing their beaches, because the state is going to claim ownership of the new beach, leaving the former beachfront owners in possession of inland property without compensation.
Just because beach nourishment normally occurs at the request of the property owner, doesn't mean it *always* does. Sometimes people would rather have a short private beach in front of their home, instead of a deep public beach.
Brett, I'd be fine with stopping beach replenishment completely. More than likely the wealthy people that you're defending would rather take their chances with losing their private beach than watch their house float out to sea.
By the way, the people you are defending would shit on you without even noticing that you are there. I have no idea why you care about them keeping their soon to be oil soaked private beach.
Yes, I'm aware that the first question you always ask, before deciding whether somebody's constitutional rights should be respected, is "Do I like them?". And if the answer is "no", you're fine with their rights being violated. I, on the other hand, am something of a civil libertarian, and want the rights of even people who wouldn't invite me to their parties to be respected.
Sorry, Brett, you are right. My first question should have been:
When did ownership of beachfront property become a Constitutional right?
December 15th, 1791. But, of course, I suspect you knew that.
It's not a right to beachfront property, but if you DO happen to own beachfront property, it's damned well a right not to have it taken away from you without compensation.
The landowners would not lose one square inch of their property as a result of the renourishment. Not one square inch. The Constitution refers to a "taking" of property, period. Brett is always happy to insert new words into the Constitution when it suits his preferences, while in other instances he gets outraged that anyone would disregard the document's plain language. Not one square inch is being taken.
There is no concept of a natural right to insist that your property continue to contact the water. If government chooses to recognize contact with the water as a property interest, then that's great, but otherwise it doesn't look like any definition of property that I know. In fact, the landowners' only argument before the Supreme Court is that because the Florida courts once decided a case the opposite way, the Constitution forbids them from changing their minds. If Florida hadn't had that earlier judicial decision, the landowners wouldn't have even the shadow of a claim, so Brett's notion that we all have some inherent constitutional right not to have sand restored to our beachfront property in such a way that the shoreline moves off our property is simply the Constitution According to Brett, a familiar concept to inhabitants of this comment section.
Oh, come on! The property line, if you look up the description in the plat book, undoubtedly is defined as reaching to the water line. That's the usual practice on the shore of a body of water. If the beach had expanded naturally, there's no question AT ALL that the property would continue to reach to the water. They're actually going to have to re-write the property description to strip the owner of ownership right up to the high tide line. That's not a taking?
Brett, if we were talking about a natural process, their property would be washed out to sea. How does property law treat that situation?
Sounds like accretion to me. I don't see any reason why a landowner would object, though. More beach is a good thing, unless you're talking about an additional mile of beach or something.
On the face of things, it sounds like a child crying because their parents got them ice cream for dinner when they really wanted to eat glass.
The reason the property owner is objecting is because their private beach is being converted into a public beach. If they'd wanted land adjoining a public beach, presumably they would have bought that, instead. It certainly would have been a lot cheaper.
A taking doesn't cease to be a taking just because somebody else, other than the property owner, would have volunteered for it. People are entitled to their actual preferences, rather than the ones the government would prefer they had. From what I've heard of the case, they're likely to lose. The Supreme court is fairly comfortable with the idea that a government can strip you of a large part of the use and value of your land, and so long as you're permitted to visit it once in a while, they won't admit a taking has occurred. This is a pretty extreme example, though; As I say, they're actually going to have to re-write the property description, and claim THAT isn't a taking. Suppose the state gives up on nourishing that beech, and it resumes it's natural proportions. Think the state will give them their private beech back? I'm betting no. It's a taking.
Brett, if the Court rules as you expect, then it's only a "taking" in your delusional mind.
Suppose the state gives up on nourishing that beech, and it resumes it's natural proportions. Think the state will give them their private beech back? I'm betting no. If the state gives up dumping sand on the beach their property will wash out to sea. Think they'd regret this idiotic lawsuit? I'm betting yes.
"If the state gives up dumping sand on the beach their property will wash out to sea."
But Kent Safriet, attorney for the Panhandle landowners, says such claims are overblown. ... "My clients, on the other hand, have a 200-foot stretch of beach," he said. They did not want, or need, the state to add 75 feet, opening it up to the public." While more than half of Florida's 825 miles of sandy beaches are eroding, some are not. Some are actually growing through accretion, the slow but constant depositing of sand along a beach by currents and waves. The beach in question is just a fraction of the stretch they're replenishing, and it doesn't need it. They could have skipped right over it. They've done that sort of thing before, when local owners objected. They didn't in this case, because they wanted to take the beach away from them.
Wow, their lawyer says it wasn't necessary? Sorry I doubted you...
In any case, I am 100% in favor of removing all that sand. When their property washes into the sea, I'll bring the popcorn.
Don't buy your popcorn now, it's sure to be stale long before that happens.
As the story notes, the beach replenishers had the option of just skipping over the holdouts' section of beach, which would convert it into something like a trench leading out to sea. It's been done before where a property owner in the middle of a replenishment zone objected. The reason they didn't do it here, is that they wanted to take the beach. The decision is due in the next month or two.
The reason they didn't do it here, is that they wanted to take the beach.
# posted by Brett : 3:58 PM Brett, I read the article. You are lying.
If you read the article, you know they did have that option. What's YOUR explanation for why they didn't take it?
My explanation is that taking that route wouldn't have ended up with the local government owning the beach. Somebody is certainly lying here, but Occam's law says that if there's a politician involved, they're the liar. You, on the other hand, assume the owners' lawyer is lying about an easily verified objective fact, how deep the beach is. Why would he be stupid enough to do that?
Brett, the reason they can't leave gaps is that the water goes into the gaps and erodes the beach much faster than if there are no gaps. It's also more expensive.
But, like I keep saying, I would remove ALL the sand and stop all future projects. Beach restoration is nothing but welfare for the wealthy.
The reason they can't do what they've done before?
But we agree about something: The government should not be replenishing beaches. I just happen to think it's doubly wrong of them to replenish them and then steal them.
The reason they can't do what they've done before?
Why do you think they have to restore the beaches again after only a few years?
"Why do you think they have to restore the beaches again after only a few years?"
I would assume it's because dumping a bunch of sand on a beach that's naturally eroding is well known to be just a temporary fix. They've got to do it all over again after a few years everywhere they do it, in case you hadn't noticed. It's one of the things about beach replenishment that makes it so stupid...
The property line, if you look up the description in the plat book, undoubtedly is defined as reaching to the water line. That's the usual practice on the shore of a body of water. If the beach had expanded naturally, there's no question AT ALL that the property would continue to reach to the water. They're actually going to have to re-write the property description to strip the owner of ownership right up to the high tide line. That's not a taking?
You're getting pretty outraged for a guy who is inventing facts out of thin air. Not one square inch of property is being taken. Like I already said, the only reason there's even a claim here at all is because an earlier Florida judicial decision went the other way, and the landowner claims Florida has to follow that precedent or the Constitution is violated. If not for the earlier decision, they wouldn't even be trying. Yet in your world the landowner has an open and shut claim. Do you ever, ever, ever stop to think that maybe the law isn't what you wish it to be?
Brett, that a constant barrier would be more efficient than one with gaps seems painfully obvious to me. Why isn't it obvious to you?
Steve, the reason the earlier court decision went the other way, was that the higher court in Florida reversed over a hundred years of Florida precedent on the subject. It was long established in Florida that the property line of property on the cost extended to the mean high tide, and followed it as the beach grew and shrank.
Until the Florida Supreme court decided to toss that long standing precedent, and say the property owners had never in the first place had a right which had been well established in Florida law for over a century. And which is pretty standard in a lot of states. I'm not making this stuff up, I'm simply familiar with the case.
"Brett, that a constant barrier would be more efficient than one with gaps seems painfully obvious to me. Why isn't it obvious to you?"
Why isn't it obvious to beach replenishers in Florida, who have in fact responded to holdouts by simply skipping past their section of the beach? Maybe because it doesn't make that big a difference, if the gap isn't fairly large.
Why isn't it obvious to beach replenishers in Florida, who have in fact responded to holdouts by simply skipping past their section of the beach? Maybe because it doesn't make that big a difference, if the gap isn't fairly large.
What makes you think it isn't obvious to the people replacing beach sand? The faster the sand goes away, the faster they are being paid to bring in more sand.
Legally irrelevant. The people suing aren't suing to get the extra beach. They're suing to have their damn beach left alone.
The Florida supreme court, in a state where property owners on the beach did, in fact, have the right to have their property wax AND wane with the natural movements of the shore, ruled that that right didn't exist, and never had. Their ruling was based on a legal LIE. They had to perpetrate that lie, in order to pretend that nothing was being taken from the property owners. Prior to this, the government offered beach owners an exchange of replenishment in return for the government getting control of the new beach. Some owners said yes, some owners said no, and it wasn't a taking because they were given a CHOICE. In effect, the government was buying the beach with sand as the currency, and accepting it when their offer was turned down. That's what changed here, the choice was taken away. That's what made it a taking.
natural movements of the shore
Big trucks dumping sand on the beach is not "natural", and I'm guessing that means it is not covered by the "hundred years of precedent".
The argument transcript for the Florida case is here; the lower court ruling is here.
A few things. As Scalia notes, even if it is a taking, they got some compensation; the dispute appears to be that they should have a chance to determine if it is enough. "government can strip you of a large part of the use and value of your land" What "large" means is open to dispute, but yes, traditional property law allows some state regulation that decreases some control of property (which brings with it some loss of value) without compensation. The argument is that this reasonable regulation is the one at issue here. As to overturning 100 years of law; the Fl ruling appeals to the common law. Also, some justices noted that this is something of a new situation. Thus, it appears quite debatable if the court suddenly changed 100 years of law. As to the benefits of the legislative plan here, weighing the policy value isn't quite the point of the judges here. If the state has the sovereign power, it can use it unwisely.
Consider the correlation of the common law with the principles of originalism in applying the Constitution to the approach of a particular state with its view of the common law (which can differ from state to state even though starting with the commonality of the English common law pre-Revolution, as well as post-Revolution). Common law can be living in its development rather than static.
Regulatory takings was a hot constitutional topic going back a few decades that was finally brought under control after the conservative Justices came to their senses and realized that yahoo lawyers were getting aggressive in challenging as takings just about every state regulation that impacted real estate. If the brakes had not been put on, perhaps Village of Euclid would have been reversed. (I assume civil libertarians have long fretted over Village of Euclid.)
Very awesome post , i am really impressed with it a lot
Post a Comment
فوائد الزنجبيل فوائد الرمان فوائد الحلبة فوائد البصل فوائد الزعتر فوائد زيت السمسم علاج البواسير فوائد اليانسون فوائد الكركم قصص جحا صور يوم الجمعه علامات الحمل تعريف الحب حياة البرزخ فوائد الزبيب
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers ![]() Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) ![]() David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) ![]() Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). ![]() Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) ![]() Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) ![]() Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) ![]() Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) ![]() Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) ![]() Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution ![]() Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) ![]() Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) ![]() Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) ![]() Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) ![]() Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic ![]() Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) ![]() David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) ![]() Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |