http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/04/ho...ank-robber

Why haven't our traditional GOP friends come out against this? Easy! We need to fight that war against drugs!

Why haven't our Democrat friends come out against this? Easy! People are trying to avoid paying their fair share!

Now I haven't seen anyone officially stake out these positions that I speculated on above. But rest assured that the Dems and GOP have zero problem with this practice. Rand Paul is against it and is trying to do something about it, but he's a GOP'er with a libertarian heart.

Big government is evil. That's a central tenet of the Tea Party.

Although it's not quite as evil as ISIS.

State legislatures need to jump on this and provide some oversight and recourse.

(02-04-2015 10:43 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Now I haven't seen anyone officially stake out these positions that I speculated on above. But rest assured that the Dems and GOP have zero problem with this practice. Rand Paul is against it and is trying to do something about it, but he's a GOP'er with a libertarian heart.

Ironically, this was one thing Holder spoke up on that I _agreed_ with him on. He was adamantly opposed to this process and wanted to get rid of the policy.

He was just never able to get anyone to do so.

Any outrage from the right here?

Quote:Nebraska's Supreme Court on Friday overturned a lower court ruling that struck down a proposed route for the Keystone XL oil pipeline through the state, potentially clearing the way for the construction of the controversial project.

...

In February, a judge overturned a 2012 law signed by Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman that approved the pipeline's path through the state and allowed the company behind the pipeline, TransCanada, to seize property using eminent domain from any landowners who deny the developer access. Three landowners sued, saying that decision should have been made by the state's Public Service Commission, not the governor, and a county judge agreed, according to the Associated Press.

Nebraska Supreme Court ruling removes hurdle to Keystone pipeline

BTW - Fox News cheered this ruling.

(02-05-2015 11:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Any outrage from the right here?

Quote:Nebraska's Supreme Court on Friday overturned a lower court ruling that struck down a proposed route for the Keystone XL oil pipeline through the state, potentially clearing the way for the construction of the controversial project.

...

In February, a judge overturned a 2012 law signed by Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman that approved the pipeline's path through the state and allowed the company behind the pipeline, TransCanada, to seize property using eminent domain from any landowners who deny the developer access. Three landowners sued, saying that decision should have been made by the state's Public Service Commission, not the governor, and a county judge agreed, according to the Associated Press.

Nebraska Supreme Court ruling removes hurdle to Keystone pipeline

BTW - Fox News cheered this ruling.

Are you surprised? They're fair and balanced for a reason, yo.

(02-05-2015 11:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Any outrage from the right here?

Quote:Nebraska's Supreme Court on Friday overturned a lower court ruling that struck down a proposed route for the Keystone XL oil pipeline through the state, potentially clearing the way for the construction of the controversial project.

...

In February, a judge overturned a 2012 law signed by Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman that approved the pipeline's path through the state and allowed the company behind the pipeline, TransCanada, to seize property using eminent domain from any landowners who deny the developer access. Three landowners sued, saying that decision should have been made by the state's Public Service Commission, not the governor, and a county judge agreed, according to the Associated Press.

Nebraska Supreme Court ruling removes hurdle to Keystone pipeline

BTW - Fox News cheered this ruling.

Yep, if they want to use the land.. Pay for it. The NE Supreme Court made a blunder on this one..

(02-05-2015 12:03 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(02-05-2015 11:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Any outrage from the right here?

Quote:Nebraska's Supreme Court on Friday overturned a lower court ruling that struck down a proposed route for the Keystone XL oil pipeline through the state, potentially clearing the way for the construction of the controversial project.

...

In February, a judge overturned a 2012 law signed by Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman that approved the pipeline's path through the state and allowed the company behind the pipeline, TransCanada, to seize property using eminent domain from any landowners who deny the developer access. Three landowners sued, saying that decision should have been made by the state's Public Service Commission, not the governor, and a county judge agreed, according to the Associated Press.

Nebraska Supreme Court ruling removes hurdle to Keystone pipeline

BTW - Fox News cheered this ruling.

Yep, if they want to use the land.. Pay for it. The NE Supreme Court made a blunder on this one..

I side with the property owners on this. It should have been handled by the proper channels and not by a unilateral decision by a governor. That's gov't overreach. I support the pipeline project, but not if it confiscates people's land in the process.

(02-05-2015 01:05 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-05-2015 12:03 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(02-05-2015 11:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Any outrage from the right here?

Quote:Nebraska's Supreme Court on Friday overturned a lower court ruling that struck down a proposed route for the Keystone XL oil pipeline through the state, potentially clearing the way for the construction of the controversial project.

...

In February, a judge overturned a 2012 law signed by Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman that approved the pipeline's path through the state and allowed the company behind the pipeline, TransCanada, to seize property using eminent domain from any landowners who deny the developer access. Three landowners sued, saying that decision should have been made by the state's Public Service Commission, not the governor, and a county judge agreed, according to the Associated Press.

Nebraska Supreme Court ruling removes hurdle to Keystone pipeline

BTW - Fox News cheered this ruling.

Yep, if they want to use the land.. Pay for it. The NE Supreme Court made a blunder on this one..

I side with the property owners on this. It should have been handled by the proper channels and not by a unilateral decision by a governor. That's gov't overreach. I support the pipeline project, but not if it confiscates people's land in the process.

my question.. who would be the proper channels in this issue? The PSC? The governor? The state legislature? I mean I'm in favor of Keystone, but there should never be the right to say "Yep, we can take your land for this project... {and the next one, and the next one}?"

(02-05-2015 02:10 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(02-05-2015 01:05 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-05-2015 12:03 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(02-05-2015 11:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Any outrage from the right here?

Quote:Nebraska's Supreme Court on Friday overturned a lower court ruling that struck down a proposed route for the Keystone XL oil pipeline through the state, potentially clearing the way for the construction of the controversial project.

...

In February, a judge overturned a 2012 law signed by Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman that approved the pipeline's path through the state and allowed the company behind the pipeline, TransCanada, to seize property using eminent domain from any landowners who deny the developer access. Three landowners sued, saying that decision should have been made by the state's Public Service Commission, not the governor, and a county judge agreed, according to the Associated Press.

Nebraska Supreme Court ruling removes hurdle to Keystone pipeline

BTW - Fox News cheered this ruling.

Yep, if they want to use the land.. Pay for it. The NE Supreme Court made a blunder on this one..

I side with the property owners on this. It should have been handled by the proper channels and not by a unilateral decision by a governor. That's gov't overreach. I support the pipeline project, but not if it confiscates people's land in the process.

my question.. who would be the proper channels in this issue? The PSC? The governor? The state legislature? I mean I'm in favor of Keystone, but there should never be the right to say "Yep, we can take your land for this project... {and the next one, and the next one}?"

To my knowledge all state and local gov'ts have eminent domain laws. How do you balance that? I admit I don't have a good answer to that question, because there are cases where the use of eminent domain was important to the betterment of the entire community. Best examples of use is when there is actual blight in a city and the city takes that property to make improvements and eliminate the unsanitary unutilized property. Especially when the landowners of the blight is doing nothing to maintain or utilize the property. Contrast that to the gross abuses of eminent domain to take good quality properties from one person and give them to another private entity. I believe this happened in Connecticut when they enacted eminent domain in New London - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

We're off course from the original premise of the thread that discusses law enforcement arbitrarily taking assets from private citizens merely for the POSSIBILITY that criminal activity is going on, i.e. "guilty until proven innocent". And on top of that, people who are never charged are spending years trying to get their property back, and these communities are trying to cut deals to steal a portion of their assets. Disgusting behavior by government.