There is an interesting ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on the COVID-19 closures in April 2020. The panel found that the closures of private beaches in Walton County, Florida, constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment.
The Takings Clause provides that “private property” shall not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U.S. Const. amend. V. As noted in this case, the takings clause embodied a deep commitment of the Founders to the protection of property. John Adams declared that “[p]roperty must be secured, or liberty cannot exist.'” Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139, 147 (2021) (quoting Discourses on Davila, in 6 Works of John Adams 280 (C. Adams ed. 1851)).
The question is whether prohibiting private owners from using their own property constitutes a regulatory or physical taking. The district court rejected the claim.
In Alford v. Walton County, Judge Barbra Lagoa (joined by Judges Brasher and Carnes) reversed:
the district court held that Ordinance 2020-09 was neither a physical taking nor a regulatory taking. We disagree. This case involves a textbook physical taking: Walton County enacted an ordinance barring the Landowners from entering and remaining on their private property; Walton County’s officers physically occupied the Landowners’ property; and Walton County’s officers excluded the Landowners from their own property under threat of arrest and criminal prosecution. In other words, Walton County wrested the rights to possess, use, and exclude from the Landowners, and it took those rights for itself. That triggers the Landowner’s right to just compensation.
Some experts, while supporting the ruling, question whether this is a physical or a regulatory taking. However, the panel insisted that it was not just a regulatory denial and thus treated it as a per se taking that did not require the balancing test under Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 US 104 (1978):
Ordinance 2020-09 physically appropriated the Landowners’ property because it barred their physical access to the land. And to enforce the Ordinance, the County entered the Landowners’ property at will for the specific purpose of excluding the Landowners. The County’s officers parked their vehicles on private property to deter entry, used private property as their own highway, and forced Landowners to vacate their property under threat of arrest. Put simply, the County “entered upon the surface of the land and t[ook] exclusive possession of it,” thereby triggering the right to just compensation. Causby, 328 U.S. at 261.
Notwithstanding these infringements on the right to possess and the right to exclude, the district court found that Ordinance 2020-09 was a simple “use” restriction. In so ruling, the district court emphasized that the Landowners retained the ability to sell their property, that the Ordinance was temporary, that the Landowners could still use part of their property, and that the Landowners could still exclude other citizens from their private property. None of these points makes a difference. At bottom, Ordinance 2020-09 prohibited the Landowners from physically accessing their beachfront property under any circumstances. That is different from a restriction on how the Landowners could use property they otherwise physically possessed.
The panel put this case into the context of prior rulings, particularly Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 US 104 (1978):
Cedar Point is a useful comparison. Recognizing the distinction between physical appropriations and use restrictions, the Cedar Point Court rejected an argument advanced by California that the regulation permitting union organizers to enter private property was a mere use restriction. 594 U.S. at 154. There, a California regulation granted union organizers a right to access private farmland “for the purpose of meeting and talking with [agricultural] employees and soliciting their support.” Id. at 144 (quoting Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 20900(e)). Under the regulation, the union organizers had a right to access the private farmland for up to three hours per day and 120 days per year. Id. Importantly, the regulation in Cedar Point did not infringe on the rights of the farm owners to possess, to use, or to dispose of their property. See id. Regardless, the Court held that the regulation effectuated a physical taking because it infringed on the owners’ right to exclude the union organizers. Id. at 149–54. In the Court’s words, “[s]aying that appropriation of a three hour per day, 120 day per year right to invade the growers’ premises ‘does not constitute a taking of a property interest but rather . . . a mere restriction on its use, is to use words in a manner that deprives them of all their ordinary meaning.'” Id. at 154 (quoting Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825, 831 (1987)).
In other words, the mere fact that the Cedar Point landowners retained the rights to possess, to use, and to sell their property did not undermine the fact that a physical taking occurred. Id. California still “physically appropriated” the landowners’ property by granting the union organizers a right of entry. Id. Here, the physical taking at issue is even more severe than the one in Cedar Point. Unlike the regulation at issue in Cedar Point, Ordinance 2020-09 infringes on the right to exclude and the rights to possess and use. The Ordinance prohibited the Landowners from entering and remaining on their own property, while County officers entered and remained at will. The mere fact that the Landowners could—according to the district court—still “exclude the public” from their property is immaterial. In Cedar Point, it made no difference that the property owners retained the right to exclude everyone but the “union organizers.” See 594 U.S. at 144. Likewise, it makes no difference here that the Landowners retained the authority to exclude everyone other than County officials tasked with enforcing the Ordinance.
This is a major ruling on takings, including the treatment of the limits as a physical rather than regulatory takings. It could find itself before the Supreme Court on that issue.
Unfortunately, these constitutional rulings took years to work out, allowing state and local officials to enforce sweeping limitations on individual and property rights during the pandemic. With the added censorship of opposing or dissenting views on the scientific basis for many of these policies, it allowed for largely unchecked authority by these officials in California and other states.
Hurray! A ruling I could not agree with more. And while they’re at I hope some court comes to realize rent control constitutes a taking as well. In fact, any price control unless a regulated monopoly is involved, should be considered a taking.
In addition, government owned businesses such as grocery stores in NYC should also be considered a taking. How is a private business supposed to compete if a government owned business decides to exempt itself from property taxes, income taxes, etc. or if government imposes onerous regulations on the private business while exempting itself from those same regulations.
Another example: government lending money directly to students. (or anyone else for that matter) cutting out banks and other lenders. If government wants to encourage more students going to college, it should buy down the interest rate or guarantee the loan or some percent of it.
The “taking” of beaches is the least of the scamdemic crimes. Torches and pitchforks next time.
Maybe the enemy considered it a test run. That works both ways m-f-ers. You think you know how we can be controlled. We know what you are.
Whew! Talked about conservative nutjobs…
So glad you provided your deep analysis and thoughts to this story. Truely enlightening commentary.
https://media.townhall.com/cdn/hodl/cartoons/MC-Branches-112125-thm-800×0.jpg
Juristocracy!
Life’s a beach and then the government takes it away.
“then the government takes it away.”
The beach first…
They didn’t take it they were just told there are no private beaches in Walton County Fl
They didn’t take your house away. It’s just that after you bought your house, they told you there were no private homes in your county.
Pfffffft.
AI Overview
James Comey committed perjury when he told the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2020 that he had not authorized anyone at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails and the 2016 election. Comey did, in fact, authorize a leak to The Wall Street Journal for an October 2016 article concerning the Justice Department’s probe into Clinton’s emails. During a September 2020 hearing, Comey denied authorizing a leak. This was a false statement, as he had authorized a leak about the Clinton investigation to The Wall Street Journal in October 2016. The indictment focuses on Comey’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 30, 2020, where he was asked under oath if he had authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source. In a May 2017 testimony, when asked the same question, Comey had previously responded under oath, “Never”.
The corrupt judicial branch will conduct whatever lawfare machinations it takes to get Comey off.
If Comey is convicted, much of the Deep Deep State “Swamp,” including judges and justices, will be susceptible.
The scenario will not be dissimilar to that described below by Andrew C. McCarthy regarding Hillary’s interactions with Obama while he used a pseudonymous email account to communicate regarding some classified information on Hillary’s unauthorized server.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
“If Clinton had been charged, Obama’s culpable involvement would have been patent.”
– Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review, January 23, 2018
New FBI texts highlight a motive to conceal the president’s involvement.
From the first, these columns have argued that the whitewash of the Hillary Clinton–emails caper was President Barack Obama’s call — not the FBI’s, and not the Justice Department’s. (See, e.g., here, here, and here.) The decision was inevitable. Obama, using a pseudonymous email account, had repeatedly communicated with Secretary Clinton over her private, non-secure email account.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/01/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-emails-key-decision-not-indict-hillary/
The Comey case is now dead.
According to the latest filings in the case yesterday, the grand jury initially returned a “no true bill” indicating its “failure to concur in an indictment.”
The foreperson’s report stated the following:
“As the foreperson of the grand jury of this court at a session held at Alexandria, Virginia on Sep 25, 2025, I report that 12 or more grand jurors did not concur in finding an indictment in this case.”
Subsequently, at around 6:00pm in the evening, well after the Grand Jurors had left the building, the grand jury foreperson informed the U.S. Attorney’s Office grand jury coordinator that the grand jury had voted to reject Count One but had voted to approve Counts Two and Three.
This is NOT what he had attested to in his report.
The grand jury coordinator then informed someone from the U.S. Attorney’s Office about that result. According to Ms. Halligan, then-First Assistant U.S. Attorney Maggie Cleary informed her of the grand jury coordinator’s account at about 6:40 PM. Ms. Halligan then “proceeded to the courtroom for the return of the indictment in front of the magistrate judge.”
At some point before appearing in front of Judge Vaala, Ms. Halligan and the foreperson signed the last page of the “Report of a Grand Jury’s Failure to Concur in an Indictment,” and someone from the U.S. Attorney’s Office printed a new indictment that included only two counts. Count One of the putative new indictment corresponded to Count Two of the original indictment; Count Two of the putative new indictment corresponded to Count Three of the original indictment. Ms. Halligan and the foreperson signed the new indictment. But there is no record of the grand jury seeing the new indictment—let alone voting on it.
Ms. Halligan and the foreperson then appeared before Judge Vaala at 6:47 PM. They presented Judge Vaala with both the “no true bill” and the new two-count indictment. After the foreperson stated that the grand jury had failed to find probable cause as to Count One, Judge Vaala asked the foreperson several questions:
THE COURT: Okay. When you say one count — so I’m looking at two different – I’m looking at case 25-cr-272, United States of America v. James B. Comey, Jr. I have an indictment with two counts that my courtroom deputy read that looks to be signed by you, ma’am.
THE FOREPERSON: Yes.
THE COURT: And it says 14 grand jurors concurred in the indictment. And then I have a report of a grand jury’s failure to concur in an indictment, and it just reports that — has three counts, and it says that the grand jurors did not concur in finding an indictment in this case.
THE FOREPERSON: So the three counts should be just one count. It was the very first count that we did not agree on, and the Count Two and Three were then put in a different package, which we agreed on.
THE COURT: So you —
THE FOREPERSON: So they separated it.
THE COURT: Sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt you. So you voted on the one that has the two counts?
THE FOREPERSON: Yes.
THE COURT: So this has never happened before. I’ve been handed two documents that are in the Mr. Comey case that are inconsistent with one another. There seems to be a discrepancy. They’re both signed by the foreperson. The one that says it’s a failure to concur in an indictment, it doesn’t say with respect to one count. It looks like they failed to concur across all three counts, so I’m a little confused as to why I was handed two things with the same case number that are inconsistent.
So to summarize, the original report from the Grand Jury indicated NO TRUE BILL ALL COUNTS.
The jury foreperson attested to this in writing.
The judge noted this in court when he said, “The one that says it’s a failure to concur in an indictment, it doesn’t say with respect to one count. It looks like they failed to concur across all three counts, so I’m a little confused as to why I was handed two things with the same case number that are inconsistent.”
But later the foreperson said that the GJ had actually only declined on Count 1, so Halligan prepared a new indictment that included just the two counts on which the foreperson ALLEGES that the grand jury voted to indict.
Here’s the problem, there is no record of the Grand jury voting on those 2 counts to indict, and no record of Halligan confirming this.
There is no audio record or written record in the transcript by the court reporter to show that Halligan went back to the GJ with the second document.
We only have the word of the GJ foreperson that the full GJ voted to indict on Counts 2 and 3. The only official document up to that point declared NO TRUE BILL ON ALL COUNTS.
Halligan would have had to go back to the full GJ to confirm that what the foreperson said is true.
BUT SHE DID NOT DO THAT.
Comey then filed a motion demanding that the Court determine whether Halligan had any interaction with the GJ after 4:28pm when the official Grand Jury record ends, and around 6:40pm when she filed the indictment with the court.
The court reviewed the GJ transcript and found no interaction after 4:28pm.
The government then filed a declaration CONFIRMING that Ms. Halligan “had no interaction whatsoever with any members of the grand jury” between the close of her presentation at 4:28 PM and the start of the return proceeding in court at 6:40 PM.
So the sequence of events is as follows:
Grand Jury foreperson submits a NO TRUE BILL ON ALL COUNTS.
Foreperson later ALLEGES that the GJ actually only declined Count 1.
Halligan prepares a NEW indictment with only Counts 2 and 3, without confirming that this is correct with the full Grand Jury.
There is no official record that the full Grand Jury voted on the indictment of Counts 2 and 3.
THERE IS NO VALID INDICTMENT.
HALLIGAN WILL BE DISBARRED FOR GROSS MISCONDUCT.
The Comey case is now dead…. HALLIGAN WILL BE DISBARRED FOR GROSS MISCONDUCT.
Right up there with “The Russia Dossier proves Trump is Biden’s puppet and he will be wearing orange in prison when we vote in November 2024”.
If this anonymous Democrat stooge was to bet he’d give out blowjobs for free if Halligan wasn’t disbarred… he would spend the rest of his life on his knees.
You mean Svelaz / George / X, et al is not already on his knees? Clearly you havent been on this forum very long to know that he is bent over slightly on his knees with his ass positioned upright, while his mouth is placed in front of a glory hole. he is an equal opportunity type of homersexual
Please read the actual transcript – not the nonsense that has been spewwed by left wing Sources.
Halligan responded to the request from the Judge yesterday.
1). The case that keeps getting cited is Not applicable.
In that case the GJ did not vote at all.
Again if everything alleged by the left were true – the indictment is still good.
2). But what keeps getting reported in the news and by YOU is false.
The GJ returned no true bill on a Single count in ONE vote. They returned True Bill on TWO counts, and they returned that TWICE.
The voted on the indictment in the Form presented to the court on the 2nd vote.
ALL of this was done completely with the oversight of a Federal Judge
Creating FAKE transcripts or editing the real ones to create a fake narrative is LYING.
Once again you are LYING.
4). Halligan provided the complete written transcript of everything related to this EXCEPT the GJ deliberations – those are entirely private no court in the country can open the door on GJ deliberations.
Regardless, the GJ affirmed on the record they returned a True Bill on Two counts TWICE – as did the GJ Forman under oath.
5). Halligan provided not just the Transcripts but the audio recordings of all of this. As well as certification under oath by Audio Experts that the audio was unaltered and represents a true record of the relevant information.
6). Halligan provided confirmation from the federal judge of all of this.
7). Halligan then proceeeded to politely point out that the Judge was on thin ice ethically – he had called Halligan a Trump puppet in open court.
That and several other remorks that he made violate the cannons of judicial ethics.
You are correct this is DEAD – that What be efforts to Quash the Indictment are DOA.
The records Halligan produced are all public records now – you can go find them if you wish.
It was unlikely that this judge was going to rule on this on Friday.
Frankly based on what was provided Friday I do not think he will do anything more.
There is no motion that is actually before him to dismiss this indictment.
There is a motion to dismiss elsewhere in another court with a different judge,
and while what occurred here has no direct bearing on that, indirectly it decreases the odds that Comey gets a favorable ruling.
These things matter – and when you LIE to the court, when you push one court out well over its skis, you make other courts behave more cautiously.
You keep ranting about Halligan’s and other Trump lawyers skills – she proved FRiday that she knows what she is doing – MORE SO than one federal magistrate and one federal district court judge.
The district Judge spent Friday working with Halligan and Comey’s lawyers to proceed through scheduling and other administrivia to get to trial.
If he was goint to act sua sponte to dismiss the indictment it is highly unlikely he would have wasted time on that.
“According to the latest filings in the case yesterday, the grand jury initially returned a “no true bill” indicating its “failure to concur in an indictment.”
FALSE – they returned no true bill on a single count. They returned True bill on two other counts TWICE.
Several competent legal scholars have acknowledge that was NOT necescary.
The indictment could have been scrawled on toilet paper with counts the GJ rejected crossed out.
VTW something very similar to this happened in the Trump/Willis GA case.
The GJ did not indict all defendants on all proposed counts, and Willis removed the no true bill counts and just submitted the indictment without them. This caused confusion because there were different forms of the indictment with different numbering floating arround.
This is considered a scrivners error and does not impact the indictment.
But Haligan avoided the mistake that Willis made by getting the GJ to vote on a clean indictment without the count that were returned no true bill.
“The foreperson’s report stated the following:”
There is no “report” there is a audio recording, and a written transcript, there is also an indictment signed by Haligan and the GJ foreman stating under oath that the GJ had returned a true bill on the counts in the indictment.
There is also a transcript of the colegue the magistrate judge did with the GJ forman to confirm that tthe indictment was valid.
“So the sequence of events is as follows”
Incorrect.
Again there is a transcript of all of this and it all occured in front of a Federal magistrate judge.
The idiotic claim YOU are making requires that:
The court reporter is lying and produced a bogus transcript.
That is actually a crime, court reports must swear to the accuracy of their transcripts.
The Grand Jury foreman must have lied under oath multiple times.
Halligan must have lied multiple times.
a Federal Judge overseeing the process and signing off on the indictment just stood by and let it all happen
The various grand Jurors – who you are claiming did not vote to indict must be themselves keeping completely silent about all this.
And you are too much of an idiot to grasp how incredibly unlikely that is.
This is an even stupider claim than the collusion delusion.
I just looked it up. If what I found is true, in 2020 every member of the county council was Republican! And several are still in office. Apparently the voters didn’t hold them accountable. People didn’t learn anything.
Florida also had a Republican Governor, but the greater point—the elephant hiding in the corner—is that the COVID-scare (false flag) was so new, unexpected, and unusual that EVERYone fell for it, including Republicans, who had best interests at heart; the saving grace is that many “Republicans” were the first to wake up to the scam, the mask hoax, the dangerous injections, while democrats went ALL IN, to the point of acting-the-fascists and mandating the injections or JOB LOSS. Many people lost their jobs—look it up!
While you are mostly correct – Everyone did not fall for it from the begining.
First there was a great deal of misinformation from the start – SOME of that is natural, When a major event occurs lots of speculation is misconstrued as fact towards the start.
There were a few people who were right about many of the important facts that most of us did not come to fully grasp until later.
Regardless, it took a great deal of time to knock off each of the many false narratives one by one.
Further there was nothing wrong with hoping that some of these measures might work, atleast not until the evidence proved they would not.
It was impossible to predict whether the vaccine would work when it was first fast tracked.
Further the initial Wuhan Covid was only half as contageous as the Delta Variant which emerged by late 2020.
It is entirely possible that the vaccine would have worked had Covid not become twice as contageous in a bit more than 6 months.
mandating the injections or JOB LOSS. Many people lost their jobs—look it up!
_____________________________
That’ what happened in WA state with a very lib governor.
The reduction of individual rights by the government should occur only when the state can demonstrate an unquestionably compelling need. In this case, there was none, because the beaches in question were private, and anyone entering them without permission would be trespassing. Do those arguing in favor of the police occupying private beaches also believe that private backyards should be closed to their owners as well?
Anonymous needs to place his eyes on the law and individual rights, not on envy.
Lin actually read the decision. (1) points out private beaches could not be used by the owners. The owners could use public beaches. Paraphrase.
PS how can any beach be bought or sold, owned privately. What happens when the tide is out…
Love to all
* Dry sand v. Wet sand — very funny. Some places the ocean is owned for no swimming. The houses are so closely fitted together with fences there isn’t public access for miles anyway. The tiny public access avenues are narrow and obscured by shrubbery.
A better rule than dry and wet sand or the mean of high tide is a simple X number of feet as a front yard.
Too obscured by too many laws for an ordinary person’s comprehension is this case.
Love
Calf beaches are for everyone. except for the Hollywood folks who put fences to keep the tax paying folks out.
Check for low tide before walking and stay close to the water. 😏
It’s a front yard for property owners. They dislike strewn beer cans and bonfire ashes into the night. Beach front is best when it provides serenity.
Mean high tide is the property line in most places but can extend into the ocean. It most likely should be reined in a bit. There’s little to none beach access in reality.
Anonymous – anything that we allow to be owned can be owned.
Further as coases law demonstrates the best possible outcomes occur with strong property rights and govenmen working to fascilitated and enforce contracts.
Nations claim to “own” everything within 100 miles of their coasts.
What a nation can own a person can own.
that is not what Lin said. I lifted this from her comment, quoting the opinion
(1) the 11th Cir. takes note, on page 5 of its opinion, that:
” Ordinance 2020-09 closed all beaches in Walton County—public and private—and made it a criminal offense for
private beach owners (or anyone else) to use or access their beach property….Meanwhile, grocery stores, hardware stores,
pharmacies, and public parks in Walton County remained open. As such, even though landowners could not walk or swim on their
private property, Walton County conceded at oral argument that the landowners could walk, swim, and engage in other recreational
activities in public places.”
People must adapt to freedom.
Freedom does not adapt to people.
Dictatorship does.
______________________
The freedom, in this case, is the right to private property, which a person shall not be deprived of, comprehensively in every aspect, facet, and degree, including rent, prices, wages et al., which constitute property as money.
Only the owner holds dominion over private property.
No federal or state legislation shall deny any constitutional rights, freedoms, privileges, or immunities.
The literal verbatim “manifest tenor,” nothing more and nothing less, of the Constitution must be implemented, and the “people” in this admonition includes government.
The judicial branch has no power to modify or amend fundamental law, or modify or amend by “interpretation”; the word “interpret” does not appear in the Constitution.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5th Amendment
No person shall be…deprived of…property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what [their powers] forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________________
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
Who could ever forget the REAL fascists, bull-dozing tons of sand over a skate park (California). Those who cry foul, “No kIngs,” and the like, are the biggest hypocrites to walk the earth. Whether regulatory or physical taking, the lack of “science” behind the COVID false-flag was a stunning lesson in human Idiocracy.
* With the dumbing down of all branches of education, popular sex-culture and social media platforms taking the place of personal interactions, rampant consumerism with limitless credit card debt, political incompetence (electing people who have never had real-world of experience with actual JOBS), and the prevalence of mainstream media dictating politics filled with outrageous content and frivolous gossip cycles, what once seemed far-fetched or fictional, has become the idiocracy of today.
No Kings, but can we have a Queen?
Kings persist.
Queens make the Kings who persist.
The American fertility rate is in a “death spiral,” which means America is in a “death spiral.”
The Queens must put their noses to the grindstone (potentially 15 – 30 children).
I don’t know about 15 to 30, but 2 to 4 is realistic.
Sure. Why not? We’ll supplement that with 20 million illegal alien mexican invaders and have Americans and America “auger in” by their “death spiral.” You’re certainly a patriotic American.
I think I’ve encountered you (and your opinion) before….
while I don’t know your angle, let me just add that if these young people don’t wake up, they’re going to lose their fertility in toto, and there won’t be any queens to carry any of that heavy load of breeding you suggest.
ALL of us need to get back to respecting and practicing family-values, and honoring the procreative process, and the best way to do this is through spiritual, Christian, values. But this does not seem likely, as there is a new and persistent idiocy today that does not reflect spirit, logic, or competence, but rather willful ignorance, the refusal to apply spiritual morality, and the nullification of facts and history.
Our young voting base is dumbed-down to the point of ensuring their own infertility, and resulting elections reflect this incompetent, self-destructive, and utterly idiotic, mindset.
So eliminating Americans from America is good. Thanks.
Somewhere down the road the young people of this country will wake up and find that they will be working for foreigners and their bosses will have a whole different set of values than what they are used to to.
Will they be wearing burqas, turbans, sombreros, Tyrolean, fez, or coolie hats?
“. . . they will be working for foreigners . . .”
You mean like Musk? Or one of the countless foreign companies Trump has been recruiting to invest in America?
Xenophobia is never pretty.
https://youtu.be/TGl8K0WkqKI
Put not your trust in kings and queens. Three of a kind will beat them every time.
“Balls,” cried the Queen. “If I had two I’d be King!”
Over one million Americans died because of this attitude, so it’s not like a bullet was dodged; on million bullets landed square and fatally. Multiple millions more suffered, some with long term problems.
In this case, the just compensation appears to be medical intervention to save lives and avoid suffering in the face of a wave of clear lethality where the primary route to contagion is proximity with the goal of decreasing unnecessary proximity. Is this different from issuing an evacuation order due to onrushing fires or worries over a dam breech or volcanic eruption? Oh, how unfair it was to clear the Mount St. Helens area just ahead of the eruption?
Which of the critics did double-blind gold standard transmissibility testing? Sure, doing that with a known lethal pathogen is entirely unethical, but if one wants to contest public health policy it’s necessary to provide absolute proof and not “can we inject bleach” levels of stupidity.
So retail stores are essential businesses, but churches must be closed down, all while the governor eats at fancy restaurants without using the same social distancing he is foisting on everyone else. And we all know the virus did not attend Black Lives Matter riots that burned down cities, because the Dem leadership agreed with the cause being protested, so the Covid restrictions didn’t apply.
https://www.newsweek.com/pasadenas-harvest-church-wins-lawsuit-against-gavin-newsom-lifting-worship-restrictions-1593096
Wasn’t it Pres. Trump and VP Pence who kicked off the shutdown in March 2020?
Our country values human life, so the steps taken in the fog of early fatal pandemic, even though they damaged kids social and educational learning, and backfired with nursing homes, went way overboard with churches and small businesses, the intentions were were to save lives, and that’s noble (but no excuse for myopia).
2020 being an election year, do you remember how Democrats thought it clever to blame Pres. Trump for each and every Covid death (as if he had magical powers and refused to invoke them!!)?? Social media amplified those outrageous, intemperate accusations. That problem remains to be fixed, and has gotten worse with AI.
It was a totalitarian lockdown by totalitarian governors. Thousands of small businesses destroyed, never to return. The governors and their aides meanwhile became intoxicated with their power. All based not on solid science but on power politics, with perhaps the most evil character being the execrable Dr. Fauci, who told lie after lie. You can’t transform it retroactively into a good-faith effort to save lives by public health authorities. The masks were useless, but they did incalculable harm to children’s mental health. The school lockdowns were useless but they set American students back years. (The only silver lining being that parents could see the Marxist lunacy being foisted on their kids during remote lessons.) If it had been a good faith effort, the public trust in public health authorities would not have tanked the way it did. The entire episode was replete with lie after lie, including regarding the genesis of the epidemic, which was so obviously from a lab leak. So it was not only the public health authorities that permanently damaged their reputation, but many aspects of public governance, and the media. Overall it was the worst and most destructive public health response to an emergency in human history.
Wasn’t the initial 2-week lockdown called by Trump and Vance? They get some of the blame for the idea, don’t they?
Hey fool, the two week lock down was done by who? Dr flasie!
Trump did not issue a EO or mandate the shutdown. He knew if he did, Democrats would then accuse him of being a dictator. He saw that trap and was smart enough not to step into it. So, he left it up to the states to make their own decisions. Which, he still got blame for not acting fast enough or tough enough or lacked leadership. When it became clear this was not the of the world as we know it, zombie apocalypse, the flatten the curve in two weeks stretched into months, people with common sense said enough. Red states began to re-open their economies, which later Biden tried to take credit for and all those so called jobs he created, which was BS. Biden’s winter of death for all the unvaccinated never happened. As the nation watched people enjoying life again in Red states, economies picking up, other states to include some Blue ones began to re-open their economies. The failed state of CA and NY were dead last to re-open.
Wasn’t the initial 2-week lockdown called by Trump and Vance? They get some of the blame for the idea, don’t they?
Deflection failure gets you a score of 2 from the Obama/Clinton/Biden Russian judges on the sidelines watching you wave your hammer and sickle virtue flags.
No, he didn’t – but thanks for attempting to play another game on a federal field instead down here on a county’s field within the state’s field.
Trump issued Fauci’s recommendations to the nation. Recommendations have no force of law where the Federal government has no force in regulating states’ affairs.
Can Trump believing Fauci at that point be criticized? Would he have been up to his neck in raging Democrats if he had ignored Fauci’s advice three months after the start of the pandemic?
The ones who had just gone on a campaign of calling him racist when he banned travel from Communist China in hopes of minimizing the spread of ChiCom Wuhan Flu.
Certainly a “yes” to the second question.
Well said, Sir!
Nope. Check the history. Look at blue states and red.
The libs went crazy with power.
“Wasn’t it Pres. Trump and VP Pence who kicked off the shutdown in March 2020?”
No – presidents do not have that authority. They asked Governors to do so, and to varying degrees they did.
“Our country values human life”
It does, it also values freedom as those who sought to FORCE us to surrender freedom during covid bitterly complained about.
“so the steps taken in the fog of early fatal pandemic, even though they damaged kids social and educational learning, and backfired with nursing homes, went way overboard with churches and small businesses, the intentions were were to save lives, and that’s noble (but no excuse for myopia).”
The road to h3ll is paved with good intentions.
One of the reasons that our constitution was supposed to thwart this nonsense and failed, if because near universally decisions made in early fog are wrong.
“2020 being an election year, do you remember how Democrats thought it clever to blame Pres. Trump for each and every Covid death”
They did and they were successful at that and that is free speech.
Democrats should be punished by Voters for their public lies during Covid.
What they did was wrong, but not a crime.
Wasn’t it Pres. Trump and VP Pence who kicked off the shutdown in March 2020?
No, he didn’t – but thanks for attempting to play another game on a federal field instead down here on a county’s field within the state’s field.
Trump issued Fauci’s recommendations to the nation. Recommendations have no force of law where the Federal government has no force in regulating states’ affairs.
Can Trump believing Fauci at that point be criticized? Would he have been up to his neck in raging Democrats if he had ignored Fauci’s advice three months after the start of the pandemic?
The ones who had just gone on a campaign of calling him racist when he banned travel from Communist China in hopes of minimizing the spread of ChiCom Wuhan Flu.
Certainly a “yes” to the second question.
“but if one wants to contest public health policy it’s necessary to provide absolute proof ”
No it is not – that is an absolutely ludicrous claim.
Particularly in light of Covid.
There is absolutely nothing that makes government decisions regarding public health higher quality than any other government decisions and the overall quality of govenrment decisions is pi$$ poor
Nor is that an accident.
We KNOW that the quality of decisions is universally proportionate to the “skin” one has in the game.
That is true regardless of intellectual ability and regardless of education.
While those both impact the quality of decisions their effect is SMALLER that having the results of a decision positively or negatively effect you personally.
Not only are you wrong – but you are 180 degrees wrong.
In nearly all instances it is govenrment – and in this case public health officials that MUST provide “absolute proof” of a signficant benefit before taking peoples rights.
Myriads of evil things have been done by often well meaning “public health” officials in the past.
The US sterilized the mentially slow – and Buck Vs. Bell is unfortunately still good law and was used again to justify egregious conduct of government during covid.
The Nazi’s used public health justifications to round up jews, homosexuals and the disabled and exterminate them.
Public Health officials at death camps decided who lived a bit longer and who went to the gas Chambers.
While you left wing nuts absurdly accuse Trump and republicans of being Nazi’s there has been no major advance in human morality and ethics – if anything we have declined in that regard since the Nazi’s. There is no reason that we can not expect the viole murders of the Nazi’s to be repeated again similarly justified by public health.
We only need to look to Covid.
You say Millions died – but even the corrupt government data does not support that.
Regardless there is no evidence anywhere in the world that any public health policies impacted Covid deaths AT ALL.
Generally the countries with the highest mortality rates had the best healthcare systems.
Why ? Because by far those most likely to die of Covid were people who had serious health problems and they would have died already in countries with poorer health care systems.
Regardless, you can caluculate covid mortality rates everywhere in the world strictly using demographics.
There is no evidence that any public health policy anywhere reduced mortality.
With respect to “injecting bleach” another of the many out of context idiotic and deceptive mangling of Trump remarks.
Immediately before Trump’s remarks Trump was advised by Dr. Brix that there was a promising treatment involving bleaching blood that appeared to be effective against Covid.
Looney lefties assume that Bleach ALWAYS means clorox.
Sunlight is a bleaching agent – there is no evidence of outdoor daytime transmission of covid ever. Generally viruses and diseases are not transmitter outdoors during the day. UV rays are extremely deadly to Covid and other virus’s and as most of us know – you are exposed to UV even on cloudy days.
There is also very little evidence of covid Transmission outdoors at night.
Government shutting down outdoor activities was blatantly stupid.
Those who spent more time outdoors were less likely to get covid and less likely to die from it.
Separately excercise decreased your odds of getting and dying from Covid. Most outdoor activity is atleast minimally excercise.
In the case here – the govenrment shut down beeches – that was just plain stupid.
Worse closing beechs with near certainty increased rather than decreased covid deaths.
Sunlight is a bleaching agent.
Oxygen is a bleaching agent, hydrogen perocide is bleaching agent.
There are many many bleaches that are not clorox and that are generally safe.
Left wing nut idiots jump to stupid conclusions. And worse they think others are as stupid as they are.
The parasites are terrified of freedom and self-reliance. They scream for the government to do something, anything! Congress has no “emergency powers,” and Congress has no power to tax for, fund, or regulate healthcare per Article 1, Section 8. Americans enjoy the freedom of locomotion, enterprise, commerce, claiming and exercising dominion over private property, etc., without governmental interference. For medical problems, Americans engage doctors. Doctors and scientists know the cure for a virus is to allow it to wash over a population while they develop a vaccine. People with comorbidities must seek protection. Americans are free to manufacture or wear a mask or take similar protective action at any time.
There were not enough lifeboats, and the onboard “government” couldn’t save all the passengers on the Titanic.
The best the “Captain” could do was go down with the ship.
After losing a close friend to the mRNA “serum” injections, and witnessing 4 other serious injuries (3 are permanent) from the same experimental serum, it’s not the “virus” itself that wielded those fates. There are countless examples of injured, maimed, and in many cases, mortally impacted by the “vax” that did NOTHING to prevent, reduce, or stop the spread of CV-19, was not, and still isn’t a “vaccine.” To somehow relate natural disasters to man-made “gain-of-function” lab viruses is utterly childish. When “medical intervention” PREVENTS the use of known treatments for viral infections, while simultaneously requiring employees to take dangerous/deadly injections of experimental poisons …….. no, you’re so far off-base it’s ridiculous. Your reality’s a political one, and it ignores the actual travesties of the Covid scam.
Sorry for your loss, off grid.
We conceptualize ownership of real property as descending from a grant from a sovereign. The chain of title. That suggests that ownership is not a natural right that the government is forbidden to take away. The command of the 5th and 14th Amendments to government is Pay, not Stop. The consequence of that Constitution design decision is that the cost of the taking is distributed to each of us through taxes to operate the government. The 11th Circuit got it right in this writer’s view. The harder question down the road is how the same reasoning affects civil forfeiture for use of property to commit a crime. Popular with government. Not so much for the individual. There are times when government stumbles into Casey Ryback’s line to Tommy Lee Jones in Under Siege: “We serve the same master, and he’s a lunatic and he’s ungrateful “. Careful voting anyone?
If the government denies you revenue by closing your property or forces you to pay rent to replace its use, that’s a taking of wealth in some form. It’s not simply a restriction on what types of income are appropriate on that property. You can’t use of the property, PERIOD.
That being said, the Eleventh’s ruling won’t stop the liberal busybodies of the world. They’ll block property and debank account holders and use whatever lawyers’ tricks are necessary to get around this type of ruling. I’ve seen a female Supreme Court justice say under oath she doesn’t know what a woman is. I’m seeing constant judicial obstruction by renegade judges. Those are open invitations to twisting any law.
The real solution is to vote the bums out and replace their politically-corrupt judges. The only good Democrat is an unemployed Democrat.
When we confiscated your own property, it was for your own good.
In California a guy was alone, surfing, and was arrested by two cops and perpetrated walked along the beach for disobeying Newsom’s lock down.
The phrase is “perp walked” where “perp” is short for the noun perpetrator, not the past tense verb”perpetrated.”
Pretty sure everyone got what Amish Warrior was saying.
William Shakespeare deliberately mangled english to great success.
The purpose of language is to communicate clearly.
If you have done that – gramar is irrelevant.
The purpose of gramar is to make clear communication easier.
Gramar is not an ends of itself.
I thought perpetual public access to the beach was settled law following the California Coastal Initiative in 1972 (except not when Gavin says).
Health Boards and Govts colluded to officially designate Non-Essential and Non-Critical businesses, all activities and assemblies of persons both public and private, under the cover of ever-revised Public Health Orders. The “just compensation” was often just an ill-defined smattering of Fed cash payouts, PPP “Loans”, emergency orders to release uncontested unemployment payments, extend medical insurance coverage, Medicaid expansion, etc. Not unlike bringing “payment in moldy hardtack, mule meat, and wormy beans to the Natives self-confined at the Agency after their hunting grounds were signed over by the corrupted leaders.
IMHO, this is an extremely well-written and concise opinion from the 11th Cir., irrespective of where you might stand on the underlying issue(s). I only add this to the good professor’s excerpts, as food for thought:
(1) the 11th Cir. takes note, on page 5 of its opinion, that:
” Ordinance 2020-09 closed all beaches in Walton County—public and private—and made it a criminal offense for
private beach owners (or anyone else) to use or access their beach property….Meanwhile, grocery stores, hardware stores,
pharmacies, and public parks in Walton County remained open. As such, even though landowners could not walk or swim on their
private property, Walton County conceded at oral argument that the landowners could walk, swim, and engage in other recreational
activities in public places.”
(2) On p. 18 of the 11th Cir. opinion, the court quotes from the SCOTUS’ Cedar Point case (justifying a physical vs. regulatory taking):
“government action that physically appropriates property is no less a physical taking because it arises from a regulation (or statute or ordinance or miscellaneous decree)….it is whether the government has physically taken property for itself or someone else-by whatever means–or has instead restricted a property owner’s ability to use his own property.”
LIN
Remember you found Booze stores open. Yeah they were needed… LOL
Who remembers when, during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, Joe Biden single-handedly made Richard Epstein famous and re-invigorated takings law by waving Epstein’s book around as if a robust enforcement of the Fifth Amendment was a dangerous proposition?
Who remembers when, during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, Joe Biden single-handedly made Richard Epstein famous
I don’t remember that! Should I? Mostly I remember racist Senator Joe Biden suddenly squirming away from the racism in his confirmation hearings when Clarence Thomas finally had enough and said to him “This is nothing but an attempted high tech lyinching” or something similar.
Democrats howling that the GOP/Trump/whoever is racist today must have some sort of confidence that the internet has forgotten their long history of electing and supporting Biden, Carter, Clinton, and Obama racism over the last 40 years or so.
Here is Richard Epstein discussing the event, complete with a photo of Biden brandishing his book:
https://www.hoover.org/research/joe-bidens-constitutionalism
Richard Epstein – excellent as always.
JS – He has an amazing mind. I once saw him speak as part of a panel. He spoke off the cuff in full, pristine paragraphs. The other panelists couldn’t hide their awe. As one of them said, in matters of law we are all, ultimately, students of Richard Epstein.
That district court was obviously playing politics, jumping through difficult hoops to try and justify an obvious wrong committed by government.
That’s the most frustrating thing about dealing with the law.
The infamous “everybody with a brain” knows that, if the government says you can’t use part of your land, it has violated the law preventing them from seizing your property.
Whatever happened to the “reasonable person” standard?
Crap like this is why so many people despise lawyers and the law. Anybody who can argue a man should be allowed in women’s spaces and to cheat against them in sports should be banned from ever stepping in a courtroom.
The infamous “everybody with a brain” . . .
Or as Lillian R. Lieber would phrase it, T.C. Mits (the celebrated man in the street).
Anybody who can argue a man should be allowed in women’s spaces and to cheat against them in sports . . .
And yet that is the mainstream Dem position, not some fringe of the Dem party. The mainstream. Which is why they always need to distract the normies of America from their lunacy with some shiny object (e.g., the supposed “Epstein files”).
I was a mainstream Dem position 5 years ago. If you don’t sense a turning back of Dem moderates from that radical stance, you’re not paying attention — or are protecting a comforting narrative by blocking out change.
I am paying attention, and I have seen some court cases go against the Dems, but I haven’t seen the Dems voluntarily moderating their insane stance on men in women’s sports – and locker rooms and showers. What I see in some Dem-controlled states is that the state is refusing to comply with Trump’s directive on this. So I have yet to see Dems voluntarily “turning back” as you put it. From what I have seen, it was a Dem position 5 years ago and it is still a Dem position today, although perhaps they are not quite as loud about it as when they were in power nationally.