Jump to content

Where Do Our Government Hating Conservatives Stand on.......


DannyZuco

Recommended Posts

While the US Supreme court giveth to the conservatives, the Texas Supreme Court taketh away from the people. 

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/texas-supreme-court-30-billion-bullet-train-project-has-authority-to-seize-land/ar-AAYRRRs?ocid=hplocalnews

 

 

Texas Supreme Court: $30 billion bullet train project has authority to seize land

divided Texas Supreme Court has given the proposed high-speed bullet train between Dallas and Houston renewed life, at least on paper.

In a 5-3 decision, the court ruled Texas Central — the Dallas company planning to build the railway — has eminent domain authority. The ruling comes a little more than a week after opponents of the controversial project thought it was dead after Texas Central's CEO resigned, leaving the company without any top management.

The $30 billion train has been in the works for years. If built, it would travel at a speed of up to 200 miles per hour and enable passengers to commute between Dallas and Houston in about 90 minutes, according to Texas Central. The company argues the project will benefit Texas by taking cars off roads, creating thousands of jobs and generating billions of dollars in economic impact.

Many Texas land owners whose properties sit in the proposed path of the train oppose the project. James Miles of Leon County sued Texas Central in 2019 challenging whether the company has the authority to use eminent domain to take property for the project.

In siding with Texas Central, the court's majority said their decision focuses narrowly on the issue of eminent domain, not about the merits of the train.

"At the outset, it is important to recognize what this case is about and what it is not about. The case involves the interpretation of statutes relating to eminent domain; it does not ask us to opine about whether high-speed rail between Houston and Dallas is a good idea or whether the benefits of the proposed rail service outweigh its detriments," Justice Debra Lehrmann wrote for the court.

Lehrmann was joined in the majority by Chief Justice Nathan Hecht and Justices Jeff Boyd, Brett Busby and Evan Young. Justices John Devine, Jimmy Blacklock and Rebeca Aizpuru Huddle dissented. Justice Jane Bland, who joined the court in September 2019, did not participate in the decision.

One of the central questions during the case has been whether or not Texas Central actually meets the definition of being a "railroad." The trial court decided the entities comprising Texas Central do not qualify as either railroad companies or interurban electric railway companies and granted summary judgment to the landowner. The appeals court reversed the lower court's decision and ruled the entities qualify as both.

The Supreme Court majority ruled Texas Central has eminent-domain power as interurban electric railway companies and said it did not to address whether they also qualify as railroad companies.

In a dissenting opinion, Justices Huddle, Blacklock and Devine said the ruling "resurrects a 115-year-old statute" governing interurban electric railways", which they described as "sisters to the trolley car" popular in the late 19th century.

"No one questions that the statute ... granted eminent-domain authority to facilitate construction of small electric railways for ferrying Texans short distances between adjacent towns and up and down Main Streets alongside horse-drawn carriages," the dissenting justices wrote. "But it blinks reality to conclude, as the Court does, that the same trolley-car statute confers eminent domain power on private entities aspiring to build — in 2022 — a massive $30 billion infrastructure project capable of supporting an elevated, 672-foot-long high-speed train as it traverses hundreds of miles and thousands of privately owned parcels between Houston and Dallas."

They also wrote that the majority opinion abandons longstanding principles to provide protection to property owners.

Texas Central celebrated the decision in a statement to the Dallas Business Journal while offering little detail about what the company plans to do next. "We are appreciative to the Texas Supreme Court for their time and consideration of this important issue as we continue work on this innovative high-speed passenger train rail," the company said.

An attorney representing Miles, the landowner who sued Texas Central, was not immediately available for comment.

Jennifer Stevens, a spokeswoman for the group ReRoute the Route, expressed disappointment in the court's ruling. ReRoute the Route is comprised of Texas businesses and civic organizations opposed to the train.

"While we are deeply disappointed with the ruling, Re-Route the Route will continue to educate federal, state, and local officials on this project’s many failings, including private property violations, severe public hazards, adverse minority community impact, weakened flood control, significant environmental damage, financial mismanagement and more, all of which render it utterly ineligible for any taxpayer support,” Stevens said.

Waller County Judge Trey Duhon, who is also president of Texans Against High-Speed Rail, said in statement said the group will continue to oppose the project. Despite the ruling, Duhon said he does not believe Texas Central has the ability to make the project happen.

"We cannot understand how the Supreme Court of Texas can designate a company in full meltdown and another company that was created and exists entirely on paper as railroads with eminent domain authority," Duhon said. "No matter the ruling, we were and remain prepared to continue the fight. We will continue to protect private property rights, tax dollars, and our natural resources. We strongly believe even with this ruling that Texas Central will not be able to progress, as it has no money, no permits, and no leadership, which has been the case for years."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eminent domain has a purpose, but it’s been abused in the past.  It is supposed to be invoked when progress is being halted, but who defines progress?  Do we absolutely need a 90 minute train ride between Houston and Dallas?  Commerce won’t stop without it, so I say no, especially at $30Billion.  Some politicians are going to make a lot of money off it so it prolly gets pushed through.  
 

how does this compare to the overturning or RvW?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RETIREDFAN1 said:
Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So what you are saying it is okay for the state of Texas to make you sell your land so that some private investor can make millions of dollars off the taxpayers? Good to know you have your priorities in order. 

Don't kill children, but allow the government to take your possessions. And we wonder why we have problems in this nation. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DannyZuco said:

So what you are saying it is okay for the state of Texas to make you sell your land so that some private investor can make millions of dollars off the taxpayers? Good to know you have your priorities in order. 

Don't kill children, but allow the government to take your possessions. And we wonder why we have problems in this nation. 

We have so many problems because in a free society we have to allow even you libtards a place..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DannyZuco said:

So what you are saying it is okay for the state of Texas to make you sell your land so that some private investor can make millions of dollars off the taxpayers? Good to know you have your priorities in order. 

 

Read the Tenth Amendment libnut......the citizen always has the option of suing........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DB2point0 said:

Eminent domain has a purpose, but it’s been abused in the past.  It is supposed to be invoked when progress is being halted, but who defines progress?  Do we absolutely need a 90 minute train ride between Houston and Dallas?  Commerce won’t stop without it, so I say no, especially at $30Billion.  Some politicians are going to make a lot of money off it so it prolly gets pushed through.  
 

how does this compare to the overturning or RvW?

The supreme court just allowed states to take away a right from an individual--that being the ability to choose--you know like when many on here were yelling "my body my choice" when it came to the vaccine. 

If the Texas Supreme court ruling is allowed to stand, then an investor wanting to make money off the taxpayers, can come and take your land, so they can build a railroad on it, that might go faster. Just another individual right taken away, that is what they have in common. 

I am glad that you do not support this, especially when the land they need is already there, all they have to to is build on top of it. I am telling you that a monorail system that flows over the top of the interstate system we have already would make more sense and provide a cleaner source for the climate whiners out there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DannyZuco said:

The supreme court just allowed states to take away a right from an individual

Lie, lie, lie......quote the clause in The Constitution giving anyone the right to murder an innocent child.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RETIREDFAN1 said:

We have so many problems because in a free society we have to allow even you libtards a place..........

And there you have it folks, when a person disagrees with a stance about something, those without the brains to argue in a consistent meaningful cordial way, turn to the easiest thing to prove they are losing the arguments--calling people names. 

I have read the 10th amendment--probably a lot more times than you have. 

But you can't seem to understand, government wants power--doesn't matter who is in office. So once you lose one right to the government--they come for the next one, until you are a servant of the government--in all aspects. 

Besides, we don't have a "free society"--we have laws and rule that people have to adhere to, that is why we have prisons, jails, police officers, judges, sheriffs and the whole bit. Because our "free society" has rules that must be followed. So logically--you might want to read the entire constitution again. SMH. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RETIREDFAN1 said:

Lie, lie, lie......quote the clause in The Constitution giving anyone the right to murder an innocent child.........

Quote me a clause in the Constitution that says you can't have an abortion......

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DannyZuco said:

Quote me a clause in the Constitution that says you can't have an abortion......

One does not HAVE to prove a negative.....youd think a "teacher" would know that point of logic.......abortion is NOT enumerated as a right....ERGO....under Amendment 10 it is left up to each individual state......

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DannyZuco said:

And there you have it folks, when a person disagrees with a stance about something, those without the brains to argue in a consistent meaningful cordial way, turn to the easiest thing to prove they are losing the arguments--calling people names. 

I have read the 10th amendment--probably a lot more times than you have. 

But you can't seem to understand, government wants power--doesn't matter who is in office. So once you lose one right to the government--they come for the next one, until you are a servant of the government--in all aspects. 

Besides, we don't have a "free society"--we have laws and rule that people have to adhere to, that is why we have prisons, jails, police officers, judges, sheriffs and the whole bit. Because our "free society" has rules that must be followed. So logically--you might want to read the entire constitution again. SMH. 

😴😴😴😴

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much the Constitution does this. 

Says--Congress makes the laws

President enforces the laws

Courts interpret the laws. 

Abortion has never been a federal law--but it will be now that the pro-lifers have gone too far right. Because sooner or later the left will have control again, and it will get passed at the national level--therefore, because of the supremacy clause will override all state laws. 

Amendments provide protections against rights that the government tries to take away. 

So outside of the preamble, and the articles that provide for adoption of the Constitution, those are what the Constitution call for. 

And while you are correct, there is NO clause that allows for abortions, there is NO clause that does not allow for abortions. In fact, I would say that abortion is a right through the first amendment, which most people have also included "choice" to be in it. Along with the other 5 freedoms of Speech, Religion, Assembly, Petition, and Press. But that is also an interpretation thing. 

  • Roll Eyes 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RETIREDFAN1 said:

One does not HAVE to prove a negative.....youd think a "teacher" would know that point of logic.......abortion is NOT enumerated as a right....ERGO....under Amendment 10 it is left up to each individual state......

And I actually agree that the states should have this ability--not contradicting that. But if legislators go to far, as some have, then the tide will turn against them, because they are unwilling to compromise and they will lose everything to the federal government and it's laws. 

And abortion is a choice--therefore it is a right, as expressed through most interpretations--left and right--of the 1st amendment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DannyZuco said:

And I actually agree that the states should have this ability--not contradicting that. But if legislators go to far, as some have, then the tide will turn against them, because they are unwilling to compromise and they will lose everything to the federal government and it's laws. 

And abortion is a choice--therefore it is a right, as expressed through most interpretations--left and right--of the 1st amendment. 

Murder is NEVER allowed as a choice.......

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RETIREDFAN1 said:

Murder is NEVER allowed as a choice.......

Abortion is not murder, unless it happens after the birth of a child, which I have said is murder. 

Because in this "free society" of RULES and LAWS--there is no governmental expectation of "when life begins"--our national and state governments have NEVER set a standardized "beginning of life", therefore, abortion being called murder is just something that the pro-lifers use to shame those who believe in "choice". Instead of being a pro-lifer, those that are against abortion, should be called anti-abortion--because to be a "pro-lifer" would mean that you want to protect that life for its entire life, not just it's birth--because we all know that none of the pro-lifers want to pay more in taxes to take care of these unwanted children. But I digress. 

Until the state or the national government define when life begins, there will continue to be "pro-lifers" and "pro-choice" people. And some need to make a choice--whether they want a religious entity to define our national laws or the "Free Society" to define our national laws. Because even a religious entity, has rules and regulations--therefore not allowing it to be a "free society" either. 

  • Like 2
  • Thumbs Down 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 years ago, the Supreme Court of The United States made the biggest and most egregious error in their history  ....  creating out of thin air a phantom Constitutional right of legal abortion that never existed in our Constitution .... Roe Vs. Wade was unconstitutionallly and wrongly decided  .....  the current Supreme Court simply corrected that error leaving the right to an abortion up to the individual States ....

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DannyZuco said:

Abortion is not murder, unless it happens after the birth of a child, which I have said is murder. 

Because in this "free society" of RULES and LAWS--there is no governmental expectation of "when life begins"--our national and state governments have NEVER set a standardized "beginning of life", therefore, abortion being called murder is just something that the pro-lifers use to shame those who believe in "choice". Instead of being a pro-lifer, those that are against abortion, should be called anti-abortion--because to be a "pro-lifer" would mean that you want to protect that life for its entire life, not just it's birth--because we all know that none of the pro-lifers want to pay more in taxes to take care of these unwanted children. But I digress. 

Until the state or the national government define when life begins, there will continue to be "pro-lifers" and "pro-choice" people. And some need to make a choice--whether they want a religious entity to define our national laws or the "Free Society" to define our national laws. Because even a religious entity, has rules and regulations--therefore not allowing it to be a "free society" either. 

GOD says it is murder.....all other views are irrelevant........

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KirtFalcon said:

50 years ago, the Supreme Court of The United States made the biggest and most egregious error in their history  ....  creating out of thin air a phantom Constitutional right of legal aborion that never existed in our Constitution .... Roe Vs. Wade was unconstitutionallly and wrongly decided  .....  the current Supreme Court simply corrected that error leaving the right to an abortion up to the individual States ....

Ain't it refreshing that Danny finally came out as a true 100% libnut????

  • Like 2
  • Roll Eyes 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KirtFalcon said:

50 years ago, the Supreme Court of The United States made the biggest and most egregious error in their history  ....  creating out of thin air a phantom Constitutional right of legal aborion that never existed in our Constitution .... Roe Vs. Wade was unconstitutionallly and wrongly decided  .....  the current Supreme Court simply corrected that error leaving the right to an abortion up to the individual States ....

That is not correct, the supreme court in 1973 used the 1st amendment to guide it for the right to an abortion. They interpreted, like many on both sides of the aisle, the 1st amendment to allow everyone to have a choice. Upon which so many more decisions have been made since then. Especially when "choice" is involved. 

I do not wish to choose to sell my land to an investor so they can build a railroad, yet the Texas Supreme court say that they may use eminent domain to take my land, even though I refuse--and while I have the right to sue, like a poster says, I probably don't have the funds that an investor has to continue this to the Supreme Court of the United States. Therefore, my choice has been taken away from me. 

And I agree that the states should have the right to decide the matter of abortion in their states--and it should be on the ballot box in November to allow the people of the state to decide, not a bunch of elected legislators paid for by lobbyists to decide. And there should be several propositions from which to choose from, such as total bans, bans with exceptions, full right to one at any time, and full right to one prior to birth. I wonder just how many of the people would want to see a vote like that. I wonder how many are scared they would lose the full ban on abortions? 

BTW--dude, slow down and learn to spell correctly. As I am playing Police Nazi today. :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RETIREDFAN1 said:

Ain't it refreshing that Danny finally came out as a true 100% libnut????

As I have said before, when you don't have a logical argument, you go back to name calling. It is a shame that a former teacher has to resort to such low antics. SMH. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DannyZuco said:

As I have said before, when you don't have a logical argument, you go back to name calling. It is a shame that a former teacher has to resort to such low antics. SMH. 

Yadda yadda yadda.......im waiting for kirt to finally be honest with himself and come out as a libnut like you did........

  • LOL! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DannyZuco said:

As I have said before, when you don't have a logical argument, you go back to name calling. It is a shame that a former teacher has to resort to such low antics. SMH. 

There IS no logical argument for wanting to murder innocent unborn children.........

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...