3 Supreme Court Cases to Watch: Gay Marriage, Drunk Driving, and Property Rights:


Fox was discussing several of the cases that are being argued before the Supremes yesterday. Our last best hope of regaining control of our out of control government rests with these fine folks. The property case is fascinating and speaks to the very basis of our liberty. Eminent Domain is totally out of control. This case portends the very future for many of us. It is easy to pass this important news by.

The Supreme Court is back in session with major decisions coming on gay marriage, the limits of police power during drunk driving investigations, and the rights of property owners to develop their land.

How are the justices expected to rule in these cases and what are the likely implications of their decisions?

Reason.com Managing Editor Damon Root sat down with Reason TV’s Nick Gillespie to talk about the cases to watch in the Supreme Court’s current session.

About these ads

8 Responses to “3 Supreme Court Cases to Watch: Gay Marriage, Drunk Driving, and Property Rights:”

  1. Teresa Rice Says:

    I do hope that the justices use some common sense and follow the Constitution on these cases. Roberts is a wild card. Who knows how he’ll rule.

    • bunkerville Says:

      For some reason, Conservatives seem to lose their way. Whether elected or appointed.

  2. Cheryl Says:

    Hi Bunker….I have done some research on the land rights issue regarding mitigation. In some states there are actually land areas bought by business people for tax write offs under a non-profit umbrella. The process is called “Land Banking.” The use of the lands in the “Land Bank” is forever forbidden from any development. The deal is that if you want to build a housing development somewhere, you have to purchase some of those lands in the “Land Bank” to “mitigate” your impact on the land you want to develop. Nice, eh? Here in North Carolina, the environmentalists have struck a bargain with the state that you can’t build a road unless you set aside watersheds or some land that “qualifies” as protected space. That means the counties and the state have to purchase land to set aside and leave it fallow (so to speak) in order to satisfy the requirement to build a road. It’s all very tangled and all of it is using our tax dollars and tax laws to undermine private property rights and / or any development.

    Are we having fun yet?
    None of those three cases sound like it will turn out well for those of us who don’t want warrantless searches, gay marriage, or land takings. I don’t understand how Scalia can say it isn’t a land taking when the government makes it so economically punishing for someone to use their own land. I hope he realizes that and doesn’t vote for the Florida government on this one.

    Just another day in the upside down world we live in!

    • bunkerville Says:

      Thanks for the update on one of the most important issues of the day. The Federal Government is slowly controlling more and more land area. Of course they want to round us up and put us in cities of course.

      • trailbee Says:

        Agenda 21

      • Bunkerville (@bunkerville) Says:

        Right you are.

  3. Conservatives on Fire Says:

    Indeed these will be interesting cases. I am particlarly interested in the land rights case. Our government is totally out of control on land rights.

    • Bunkerville (@bunkerville) Says:

      I am with on that one. Maybe they will back off the eminent domain ruling that suited the Chinese more than us.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 621 other followers

%d bloggers like this: