Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

LIVE REACTIONS: ABC GOP Presidential Debate

LIVE REACTIONS: ABC GOP Presidential Debate

New Hampshire Edition

Welcome to our live debate coverage. The debate begins at 8:00 PM ET on ABC from St. Anselm’s College Institute of Politics, Manchester, New Hampshire. You can watch the live stream here.

Who’s participating in the debate? Everyone but Jim Gilmore and Carly Fiorina. Your comprehensive list here:

  • Jeb Bush
  • Ben Carson
  • Chris Christie
  • Ted Cruz
  • John Kasich
  • Marco Rubio
  • Donald Trump.

Brutal segment for Rubio

Though this answer on abortion probably overcame the damage

Brutal segment for Trump?

Lots of chatter that this was the “humanizing” moment for Cruz:

Watch real time debate reaction:

Legal Insurrection Authors:

Political media reaction:

Candidates:

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Whiskey Bravo | February 6, 2016 at 8:32 pm

What is more than infuriating is watching the Republican Party, year after year, allow the media to determine the direction of the debate–all the while giving the Democrats a “pass” on tough and controversial questions.

Oh well, we all know why. It’s just infuriating.

Watched just a bit, enough to watch Christie hand Rubio his *ss.

Eminen5 domain. Trump points out that the takings required to build keystone pipeline are KELO type takings. It is the government taking private property in order to see it transferred to another private developer, the pipeline oil company.

A KELO taking and supported by every republican on the stage and all the Cruzbots on LI.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 6, 2016 at 10:24 pm

    This is your typical Gaghdad Bob lie.

    Every pipeline and every power-line in existence is NOT a “Kelo taking”. A right of way is NOT Kelo taking. There’s a reason the Kelo decision was ground-breaking.

    Poor stupid, lying butt boi Britt…

      Nope you are an admitted LIAR that doesn’t ever bother to read anything or think about anything. You just lie and use vulgarity or copy and paste the thoughts of others.

      You are just a liar and nothing not deserving of the slightest consideration.

        Valerie in reply to Gary Britt. | February 6, 2016 at 11:42 pm

        No, he has merely lost patience with your babbling.

          Always good to hear from the uninformed morons.

          Xoxo

          Radegunda in reply to Valerie. | February 7, 2016 at 12:23 am

          Valerie is anything but an uninformed moron.

          You, on the other hand …

          Always good to hear from the well informed moron democrats on LI az well.

          janitor in reply to Valerie. | February 7, 2016 at 1:05 am

          They attack Trump over minutiae because they must want Hillary, Sanders or Rubio to destroy this country.

          The guy who busted his ass working his entire life, and ditto his parents.

          This crap isn’t going to help Ted Cruz. Only lazy peabrain bullshit artist Rubio with the anchor baby wife. Or else the pay-for-play corrupt witch responsible for untold numbers of deaths in addition to Benghazi.

          I have lost faith in the intelligence of the people here.

          They attack Trump over minutiae because they must want Hillary, Sanders or Rubio to destroy this country.

          Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously when you come out with nonsense like that?

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to Gary Britt. | February 6, 2016 at 10:37 pm

    Wrong again. There is a world of difference between right od ways and what the government did in Kelo.

      No you are wrong. With a road. Private property is taken for a road that is OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

      The keystone pipeline is taking private property for a pipeline that is OWNED BY A PRIVATE PARTY OIL COMPANY.

        Sanddog in reply to Gary Britt. | February 6, 2016 at 11:32 pm

        So you’re opposed to powerlines on the national grid that are owned by POWER COMPANIES?

          Not at all. But takings for power lines are kelo type takings. Kelo tak8ngs are takings where the property is to go to a private business.

          Sanddog in reply to Sanddog. | February 6, 2016 at 11:45 pm

          You don’t understand that whole “public use” thing, do you?

          By all means, keep digging that hole. You’re the best spokesman Trump could ever hope to have.

          Both Keystone and Coking involve the same kind of “public use”. Just different size takings and different size of public benefit. But each proportional to the size of the taking.

          You are the one that doesn’t get it.

        Radegunda in reply to Gary Britt. | February 7, 2016 at 12:29 am

        The whole reason there was a Kelo case is that it involved a “use” that was not already well established in law. If it had been just like a pipeline or a railroad, it wouldn’t have gone to the Supreme Court — and it wouldn’t have elicited so much outrage.

        And it’s a safe guess that you wouldn’t be defending Kelo so adamantly if it weren’t so warmly embraced by your superhero demigod.

          Nope. Kelo involved the same kind of use as for larger projects like railroad or pipeline. It was the size of the project and public use benefit that confused some people into thi king it was different. But supreme court said it wasn’t different.

          Gunstar1 in reply to Radegunda. | February 7, 2016 at 2:04 pm

          Gary,

          Go read the actual opinion, there is a difference between a railroad/pipeline/power lines versus a parking lot or apartment complex.

          The use from railroad/pipeline/power lines is needed to get one thing to another place. That transport benefits everyone.

          If not for railroad or pipeline, there would be no oil transport. On the other hand, demolishing someone’s house so that someone can put in a higher end apartment complex is a different thing.

    Sanddog in reply to Gary Britt. | February 6, 2016 at 11:30 pm

    The Keystone pipeline would send oil from Alberta to the refineries in Illinois and Texas. That would increase the supply of oil in the USA and reduce our dependency on oil from the middle east. It’s a huge benefit to the USA and it doesn’t require our tax dollars or our government inefficiencies. This isn’t like a parking lot for limousines in Atlantic City. It benefits all Americans, not just a billionaire property owner. Don’t try and pretend Keystone is in anyway comparable with Vera Coking. It just makes you look stupid.

      Wrong. Keystone will take 1500 miles of private property to benefit a private business. Coking was to take 0.25 acres of property to support a 200 room expansion of hotel which would provide Atlantic City 100s of new permanent jobs an extra 100s of thousands in annual tax collections that could be used for schools and parks and other public benefits.

      Coking’s greed hurt the city wor K ers and children of Atlantic City.

        Sanddog in reply to Gary Britt. | February 6, 2016 at 11:50 pm

        Is anyone else wondering what the hell a collectivist is doing trying to argue a point he clearly doesn’t understand? Public use had a pretty clear definition for the first 216 years this country existed. Kelo changed that definition.

          When stumped on the facts and logic shout boogeyman or in this case collectivist and run away.

          Curle in reply to Sanddog. | February 7, 2016 at 12:31 am

          “Public use had a pretty clear definition for the first 216 years this country existed. Kelo changed that definition.”

          What type of law do you practice?

          The majority justices in kelo don’t agree with you I watched Stevens describe how they thought kelo was unremarkable application of public use doctrine and were quite surprised at public reaction.

          While I happen to not like the kelo decision personally it is still true that the public use benefits of pipeline and kelo taking are the same kinds of benefits they are just different in size and scale.

        gmac124 in reply to Gary Britt. | February 6, 2016 at 11:52 pm

        Keystone pipeline is comparable to the right of ways for the railroads. In no way shape or form similar to what Trump tried to use it for. Give it a rest.

      Radegunda in reply to Sanddog. | February 7, 2016 at 12:32 am

      Gary evidently subscribes to the first Trumpian principle of ethics: If it’s good for Donald J. Trump, it’s good.

    Estragon in reply to Gary Britt. | February 7, 2016 at 5:16 am

    This is just a flat-out lie.

    Kelo is NOT about taking for public use, which no one disputes – securing property for roads, pipelines, utility lines, parks, etc. It’s about taking of private property for the benefit of other private parties – like Trump trying to take the widow’s home for a fourth of what she had already turned down to build more limo parking for his casino (that failed).

    Trump lied about her holding out for more money: she just wanted to keep her home and small business as it was. She won in the end because New Jersey courts recognized there was no justification for it, no public benefit, just Trump’s personal greed.

      Keystone pipeline and Coking are exactly the same kind of taking property to give to a private company. The only difference is the size and scale of the two projects.

      You have also obviously never read anything about the Coking case. The judge absolutely found that taking Cokings’ home was public use if the property was to be used for parking lot. The judge would have granted the taking if Trump company would agree to a deed use restriction that it would only be used for parking lot in the future. Trump company wouldn’t accept use restrictions on the property and rightly so. So because of that the judge ruled against Trump.

      Coking’s greed took 100s of jobs and 100s of thousands in yearly tax revenues away from the citizens of Atlantic City.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 7, 2016 at 9:58 am

        More straight up lies, supported by more unmitigated Collectivist crap.

        “From each according to their property rights, to each according to the (mystical) property tax gains.”

        See why T-rump is a Progressive thug who MUST be stopped by conservatives?

          Nope you are an admitted LIAR that doesn’t ever bother to read anything or think about anything. You just lie and use vulgarity or copy and paste the thoughts of others.

          You are just a liar and nothing not deserving of the slightest consideration.

          Your unsupported conclusions wrapped in a blanket of factless name calling does not an argument make.

          1. Indentify the specific statements that you claim are lies.

          2. Offer factual evidence that the statements are in fact false.

          3. Offer factuaal evidence that the speaker knew the statements were false when he made them and therefore was lying.

          These are all the things completely omitted from your post as is usual for you when you aren’t copying and pasting other people’s thoughts.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 7, 2016 at 10:27 am

        More straight up lies, supported by more unmitigated Collectivist crap.

        “From each according to their property rights, to each according to the (mystical) property tax gains.”

        See why T-rump is a Progressive thug who MUST be stopped by conservatives?

        Gunstar1 in reply to Gary Britt. | February 7, 2016 at 1:53 pm

        Gary, you really don’t understand what Kelo was actually about then. Kelo wasn’t just another old ED decision that had been made numerous times before, if it was, it would not have made it to the supreme court. The fact that it did shows there is something different about it.

        In Coking, the ED that Trump wanted was denied. In Kelo, that same purpose was said to be OK by the Supreme Court.

        The use of ED for Keystone like projects have gone on well before Kelo was decided. There is a difference between them. It is more than just giving land to a private company.

          Barry in reply to Gunstar1. | February 7, 2016 at 2:12 pm

          “In Coking, the ED that Trump wanted was denied. In Kelo, that same purpose was said to be OK by the Supreme Court.”

          Actually, no. Trump lost because the “public use” was not guaranteed for the properties in question in the future. The wording of the original contracts did not guarantee that Trump would not change the use of the property to something that would not be of public use. That is, IMO, the only reason he lost. KELO was exactly the same type of ED case, but the property was guaranteed to be for public use forever.

Rubio. Lazy. Not real bright. Never held a real job. No experience doing anything other than taking orders from handlers and memorized yakking.

And a wife who is a Columbian immigrant anchor baby.

That he’s one of the front runners attests to the stupidity of the American public. Maybe we need “consumer protection regulations, etc….”

Maybe we already are a banana republic and don’t deserve any better.

    rotten in reply to janitor. | February 7, 2016 at 1:35 am

    Not just that, but his brother in law is a convicted cocaine trafficker.

    While previous presidents have had scuzzy relatives (Neil bush, Hugh Rodhan), its not good for the country and is a blackmail risk of sorts.

      Mercyneal in reply to rotten. | February 7, 2016 at 5:27 am

      Um Bill Clinton’s brothers was a cocaine dealer and no one cared . You can’t hold someone’s brother in law against them. If we are going to go down that route, then Hillary Clinton’s son in law ‘s father spent a long time in federal prison for a Ponzi type scheme.

      You’re attacking from the Left again. You’re no different, and no better, than the Leftards who argued that Sarah Palin must be disqualified because the mother of her daughter’s boyfriend’s stepcousin’s fiance was arrested on drug charges, or some such.

      IOW: you’re a grub.

I not know why anybody would think Rubio’s answer on abortion was that good. He repeated that he is against abortion even in the case of Rape and incest.

He will get war on women’d just like Romney did. Women are 54% of voters and while its bad to pander its really dumb to give out red meat to the feminists.

So you are saying that anyone whose who was born in the US whose parents are immigrants are anchor babies? Andrew Jackson ‘ s parents were both. Immigrants from Ireland. By your argument he was an anchor baby too

Donald Ducks LIED.

So, naturally, the T-rump suckers have to support him with more lies. And utter Collectivist bullshit like, “Coking’s greed hurt the city wor K ers and children of Atlantic City”.

T-rump was booed. Everyone, including T-rump and his suckers, knows he was wrong, is WRONG, and WILL BE WRONG concerning property rights.

Conservatives have to fight this Progressive fraud.

    amwick in reply to Ragspierre. | February 7, 2016 at 7:12 am

    Mr. Pierre is right, Donald did get booed. Still, I have to wonder who was in the audience, how they got tickets?

    Your unsupported conclusions wrapped in a blanket of factless name calling does not an argument make.

    1. Indentify the specific statements made by Trump that you claim are lies.

    2. Offer factual evidence that the statements are false.

    3. Offer factuaal evidence that Trump knew statements were false when he made them and tgerefore was lying.

    These are all the things completely omitted from your post as is usual for you when you aren’t copy and pasting other people’s thoughts.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 7, 2016 at 10:21 am

      1. Indentify [sic] the specific statements made by Trump that you claim are lies.

      Paraphrasing because I don’t have a transcript: Keystone would not get ten feet without ED. This is simply false. Virtually all pipeline ROW is purchased. Very little ED is needed or used.

      2. Offer factual evidence that the statements are false.

      IF you knew your ass form a hole in your face WRT property rights, you’d know what I just asserted is TRUE. Prove it isn’t.

      3. Offer factuaal [sic] evidence that Trump knew statements were false when he made them and tgerefore [sic] was lying.

      One may lie by making a “factual statement” they assert is true, while caring nothing about its truth. This is why FRAUD, which you also are stupidly ignorant of, includes this as an element in proving it up. It also applies in the law of defamation.

      Moronic liar.

        janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | February 7, 2016 at 10:59 am

        Virtually all pipeline ROW is purchased. Very little ED is needed or used.

        Property condemned via eminent domain also is purchased. For “just compensation”. This is necessary especially in those “very little ED” cases in which one last hold-out is using the leverage of holding up an entire project to demand a ridiculous price.

          Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | February 7, 2016 at 11:08 am

          And NONE of that bullshit is on point.

          Almost ALL pipelines and power-line are built on ROW purchased by willing buyers from willing sellers.

          Which is the definition of a market transaction.

          Barry in reply to janitor. | February 7, 2016 at 2:21 pm

          “Almost ALL pipelines and power-line are built on ROW purchased by willing buyers from willing sellers.”

          As are most of the projects that are not pipelines or power lines. Most property is bought and sold by willing buyers from willing sellers. It is always the few that ED is used upon to force the sale. Some of those willing sellers are also influenced by the threat of ED proceedings.

          Check out the football stadium in the state of Texas, Arlington if I recall correctly, and NYC.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 7, 2016 at 10:42 am

      Also, you moronic, lying SOS, as I’ve had to repeatedly school you, a straw man is a FORM of lie.

      T-rump used it, and he certainly did it by design. Most likely from being coached on how to excuse his depredations on other people’s property rights.

      The straw man, even YOU (with the memory of a goose) will remember consists in proposing a false predicate. Here, it is implicit in the conflation of legitimate ED with a Kelo taking.

      This is then followed by a statement of apparent validity. Here, “nothing would be built” without ED.

      This leads to a false conclusion. Here, without Kelo takings nothing would be built.

      As any objective observer will appreciate, this is a lie.

      It’s the same lie you’ve been lying all night and into the day. It’s what you do. It’s who you are.

      A lying sack of T-rumpian sharia. And a Collectivist brownshirted bigot.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/culture-civilization/kelo-the-shame-of-a-nation/

For anyone confused by the APPALLING LIES told by the T-rump suckers here, and by their apparent endorsement of Kelo and its drafter, Justice Stevens, this is a great synopsis of just WHY Kelo WAS a complete departure from the intended use of ED, and WHY it is such an affront to property rights under the Constitution.

Follow the links.

Rags, while I agree with you in principle, substance and fact of law, your continued vulgarity in ‘making a point’ is getting old. I and countless others are tired of this constant dialogue with the calling of others ‘SOS’ and ‘Moron.’ At this point, you are a distraction from constructive discourse. Both of us are Cruz supporters, and I suggest you take a few pages from his book on how to engage dissenters.

    I’m a little grossed out as well. Just because some Trumpkins are potty-mouthed gutter-dwellers doesn’t mean it behooves us all to jump down there into the mud and sewerage with them.

    Amen!!

    Ragspierre in reply to quiksilverz24. | February 7, 2016 at 12:20 pm

    Oddly, my search of this thread for any such shutupery directed at the T-rump suckers here returned nothing.

    Zip.

    Nada.

    You ‘and countless others’ you pretend to speak for are strangely selective in your condemnation.

    But you can…with my permission…apply freely the censorship of simply not reading any post marked “Ragspierre”.

    I’ll also look for you to post more in ‘constructive discourse’ since this is all you’ve posted on this thread. I’m sure you’ll have a LOT of great stuff to say. You’ve just been holding back in abhorrence.

    Right…???

      Rags:
      Over the last couple, maybe more, years I have agreed with around 95% of the substance of your comments, which cover an impressively wide range of subjects. Many of your comments contain good citations and links. I think that you and I have had only one significant ongoing exchange in which we disagreed on a matter of substance. Further, I respect your substantive opinions.
      Regarding the invective, however, I agree with those commenters above who think it detracts from the substance. While I almost always give you a deserved thumbs up, occasionally I am reluctant to do so because of the slurs contained along with your substantive points.
      I don’t bother pointing this out regarding jerks like Gary Britt because I am happy for them to run themselves down.

      quiksilverz24 in reply to Ragspierre. | February 7, 2016 at 1:03 pm

      As I said, Rags, take a page from the book of Cruz: engage, don’t demean. I haven’t made a comment of substance because I got to the party late and don’t want to be an echo chamber for previous commentors.

      Maybe it seems that I’m singling you out? I am, because I expect better from you.

      MikeInCA in reply to Ragspierre. | February 7, 2016 at 5:51 pm

      Oddly, my search of this thread for any such shutupery directed at the T-rump suckers here returned nothing.

      Well, that was dishonest.

      I don’t know why you’re not banned. The Professor keeps asking for civility, and you keep ignoring him.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to quiksilverz24. | February 7, 2016 at 4:02 pm

    I can’t add to what you said, so I will just say I support it. I now just scroll past the constant backing and forthing between Rags and Britt. It’s boring.

If you are interested in reading the actual facts of the case of Trump and Coking, the actual court decision:

(It is actually a short read)

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court/1349001.html

SCOTUS has, in many rulings, including KELO (which occurred after this decision), upheld that the taking of property by ED is legal, even when the transfer is from private hands to another private hand, as long as there is a substantial public use component.

In this case the decision not to allow hinged on the fact that public use was not guaranteed after the transfer, in other words, the original wording of the contracts did not guarantee that Trump could not alter the use of the property in the future to something not for public use. Had this been worded different the court likely would have found for Trump, IMO.

This was not just the property of Coking, two other properties were involved.

A few other facts:
Coking lived in her property and ran a boarding house. The other two properties were business’s.

Trump had offered Coking 2 million for the property which she turned down. The property was sold at auction 8 years later for about 500K, with a reserve price of 200K, a reserve 1/10th of what Trump had offered.

I believe Trump’s offer was more than fair, well above the market value. I also believe if the woman did not want to sale she should not have been forced to do, in this case.

I am adamantly opposed to this type of public property taking. I also know ED is required to have a functioning government / public need. How one writes legislation that stops this type of use while allowing for acceptable use is way beyond me however. The fact is, ED has been, and is used to force the sale of property from one private owner to another as long as the use has substantial “public” benefit. It’s easy to see where this is good, when it benefits a huge number of people (think pipeline), and bad when it benefits substantially fewer people (think KELO). But legally they are both the same.

    Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | February 7, 2016 at 2:44 pm

    “But legally they are both the same.”

    No. That is your unsupported opinion on a matter you have no expertise in, and it is simply false.

    Several lawyers on this thread have pointed out they ARE NOT the same, and, if you read Kelo, you would know that’s true. Even common sense tells you Kelo is a landmark case, so why are you lying to yourself about the issues here?

    Read the link I posted at…
    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/culture-civilization/kelo-the-shame-of-a-nation/

    Again, you tacitly APPROVE of Kelo, and its “reasoning”, of which no conservative (including Sarah Palin) approves.

    And you either approve of T-rump’s depredation on other peoples property rights, or you don’t. He holds the same…or worse…views as Bernie Sanders on that score.

    And he’ll intentionally lie about it to your face…or TV.

      “Again, you tacitly APPROVE of Kelo, and its “reasoning”, of which no conservative (including Sarah Palin) approves.”

      Actually, no. As I clearly stated, “I am adamantly opposed to this type of public property taking.”.
      Please try to represent my opinion or statements fairly.

      “No. That is your unsupported opinion on a matter you have no expertise in, and it is simply false.”

      I do not grant lawyers the only “expertise”. While I will not claim to be an “expert”, I can read and understand other experts, and have done so. There is a wide range of opinion with respect to both Kelo and Trumps case.

      Since you seem to claim expertise, then please respond with the “legal” difference. While I disagree with the Kelo decision entirely, I have read the SCOTUS majority (Stevens) opinion and the minority opinions. I agree with the minority, but I find no real difference legally. I will note that Stevens seems to have erred in some of his thinking upon past decisions (it’s been a while but IIRC, even he noted that).

      I read your link. It is an opinion with very little substance. I find this a better article, one that would better support your point of view:
      http://volokh.com/2011/11/16/justice-stevens-on-kelo/

        Barry in reply to Barry. | February 7, 2016 at 3:12 pm

        Sorry, left out the minority (O’Conner) view.

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZD.html

        Barry in reply to Barry. | February 7, 2016 at 3:17 pm

        One more thing, By “no difference legally”, that statement leaves a lot to be desired.

        I am not referring to the constitutional argument, one that would require the definition of public use to be very strict. I am actually saying that once you define “public use” in the way the SCOTUS Kelo ruling did, then there is nothing separating these cases (pipeline Vs public parking lot) but the size and scope.

        Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | February 7, 2016 at 4:03 pm

        “The fact is, ED has been, and is used to force the sale of property from one private owner to another as long as the use has substantial “public” benefit.”

        And, inadvertently, you stated the sea-change in Kelo.

        “Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as “public purpose.” See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 158—164. Without exception, the Court has defined that concept broadly, reflecting its longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments as to what public needs justify the use of the takings power. Berman, 348 U.S. 26; Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229; Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986. Pp. 6—13.

        Along with Steven’s really appalling “reasoning” that property rights are just too h-a-r-d for the Court to have to deal with in a “changing society”. I mean, hell, who knows what words mean, right?

        If we apply that to all natural rights, we’re screwed.

        “As I clearly stated, “I am adamantly opposed to this type of public property taking.”.”

        Wul, yeh. You DID say that. While in the same breath assuring everyone in your expert opinion that was no legal difference between pipelines and Kelo takings. Which is not intellectually consistent, since you articulate no rationale for being “adamantly opposed” to something you assert is the same. Legally.

        You also never address the issue of T-rump’s depredation on other peoples property rights. Approve or disapprove?

        How does he differ on this essential issue from Bernie Sanders?

          Lets start here:

          “You also never address the issue of T-rump’s depredation on other peoples property rights. Approve or disapprove?”

          I completely disapprove. I would think reading my comment would make this clear – “Actually, no. As I clearly stated, “I am adamantly opposed to this type of public property taking.”.”

          There is not a single candidate in any election that I have not found some problem with, including Trump and Cruz. I can support the candidate even with some warts, as I have always had to do. This is a significant wart with respect to Mr. Trump, but the real problem here is the Supreme’s…

          That should be clear enough – I think Trump is completely wrong on ED. I have no idea what Sanders position is, but can assume it is on the order of everything belongs to the state, and I don’t find trump goes anywhere near that standard.

          “Wul, yeh. You DID say that. While in the same breath assuring everyone in your expert opinion that was no legal difference between pipelines and Kelo takings. Which is not intellectually consistent, since you articulate no rationale for being “adamantly opposed” to something you assert is the same. Legally.”

          No, I do not represent my opinion as expert. I simply state that lawyers are not the only ones qualified to have opinions. Since lawyers have differing opinions on this, as did the SCOTUS which has members that are all lawyers, this is self evident.

          I attempted to clarify what I meant by “legally the same”. My original comment left a lot to be desired and you are correct in pointing out it is inconsistent as originally constructed. In writing quickly on a blog it is not always clear. That is why I added the last comment. You might not have read that, or perhaps still find it confusing. There were a bunch of comments upthread that I had in mind. So, what I meant was what I attempted to clarify: Post Kelo, I see no difference in small (say a stadium) or large (say a pipeline) projects other than size and scope. Pre Kelo, the distinction is quite different. As I said, I disagree with the Kelo decision.

          Now, my original post that started this particular discussion was to provide a link to the actual court decision with respect to trump. This, prior to Kelo and did not go on to SCOTUS. As I read it, that court might have found for Trump had the contract been written more clearly with respect to the property involved and public use. It very well might have been a Kelo had it gone that way, it certainly seems to me it is much the same as kelo, except for the outcome.

          I’m no expert and make no such claim. But I can read and reason without a political objective.

    neo-neocon in reply to Barry. | February 7, 2016 at 4:20 pm

    Barry:

    You write “Trump had offered Coking 2 million for the property which she turned down.” You also gave a link, but on going to that link I could not find any documentation of the amount of Trump’s offer. Perhaps I missed it, however.

    I did a lot of research on Coking for a piece I wrote recently at LI. I’ve read various assertions about what Trump offered, but I wasn’t able to find any confirmation of what it in fact was. All I found were Trump’s claims about the generosity of his offer, versus Coking’s denial that it was at all generous.

    So, if you could guide me to the source of your $2 million claim, that would be most helpful. Thanks!

    By the way, by the time Coking sold her property (over ten years after the lawsuit; she lived in it till then, and had lived there for about three decades prior to the suit), Atlantic City had fallen on very hard times and that’s why the value of her house had declined. Of course, the same had happened to Trump’s casino, which ultimately failed.

      I had the 2mil in my head but you might be correct that it is not substantiated. I thought that was well known, perhaps not and possibly incorrect. Maybe the original source of those numbers are Trump. I did not look for it. I will look however.

      The actual sale number I know to be substantially correct and yes property values certainly fell. It is my understanding that the property values 8 years earlier were higher, but not anywhere the 2mill mark prior to the development contracts. Now, per your question I will have to question my belief in that number. If the offer was substantially less it would indicate Trump might have been trying to purchase the property for less than the value.

      As I said in the comment where I gave the numbers, she should not have been forced to sale of course, regardless of the offer.

      I am aware of her long term residence both before and after. I’ve not made a case for evicting her either. My last post to Rags that was done before I read yours might clarify that just a bit.

      Trying to verify why I had 2mil in mind, I can find only this form a NYT article where the grandson (Casey) states the highest offer he remembers was 1.9mil. It is the NYT’s, and there is no particular substantiation. There are other reports of higher amounts and offers that mean nothing unsubstantiated.

      My bolding:

      “She continued to turn away suitors for the property even after the decision. She was not completely opposed to selling, but whatever price she had in mind, no one could ever meet it, including Mr. Trump, who recalled offering as much as $4 million as well as a room for life at any of his properties. Mr. Casey said the most he remembered Mr. Trump offering was $1.9 million. “He never made her a real offer,” Mr. Casey said. “He just tried to steal it.””

      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/22/nyregion/a-homeowner-who-refused-to-cash-out-in-a-gambling-town-may-have-missed-her-chance.html?_r=0

    Barry in reply to Barry. | February 7, 2016 at 5:16 pm

    Per neo-neocons comment below in this thread, the 2 million offered by Trump as stated by me may be an error. It is not very clearly substantiated, it came from my memory.

    It may or may not be correct.

Barry:

You found essentially what I found, then: Trump’s unsubstantiated claims and a denial by Coking’s side.

And yet I’ve seen it mentioned time and again around the blogsophere that Trump had made a very generous offer, as though this is a known fact, when it is not. By the way, that is not a criticism of you; you were just picking up on it and assuming that if something is said so often it must be true. The only reason I became suspicious is that I was writing an article on it, and in that context I needed to be as absolutely sure of my facts as possible, and I couldn’t find a reliable source for how much the offer had been, or if there ever even was an independent offer from Trump.

If you read that LI article of mine I linked to earlier, you may have noticed that in Scotland Trump tried to do something similar to a local resident there named Michael Forbes whose small farm Trump thought was spoiling the view from Trump’s golf course. I read a great deal of material in preparation for that article that doesn’t appear in the post, but there was a very similar disagreement about just what Trump had offered Mr. Forbes for Forbes’ property, as well as other people in the area for their property, and how those offers might have been rendered. See this, for example:

Like Forbes, Milne said he is categorical about his refusal to sell. In any case, he said Trump’s offers have been derisory.

“I received a written offer about two weeks ago, equivalent to the sales price of a one-bedroom apartment in Aberdeen,” he said.

Like him, he said, his neighbors have received offers in the region of $300,000 to $350,000.

“There is no reason for us to sell,” he added.

If the price was right, Norman Davidson thinks more residents would be willing to relocate.

“He’s got to offer them realistic prices for their property,” he said, “because they have to buy houses afterwards, and properties.”

From Forbes himself, you can read this sort of thing:

“Three months ago, I got [an initial] letter from Trump’s solicitor offering me £350,000 for my place, lock, stock, and barrel. It was a nasty letter, demanding the place. So I stuffed it back in the envelope and wrote on the outside, ‘Take your insult and shove it and do not bother me again,’ and popped it into the postbox up at Menie Estate, and that’s when everything went mental. They stopped my access to the beach. By then Hobday, George Sorial”—Trump’s director of international development in New York—“and another lad had met Mother and me and started apologizing for the disruption that was going to be caused by all the machinery. They offered to move us to Blackdog,” a big rock three miles down the coast, so named because it seems to howl in the wind, “but it’s a dump, with methane gas coming out all over the place. I said no, then they offered to jack up the house and move me and Mother to the other side of the highway. I said no, and they said, ‘We’ll give you a job,’ but they wouldn’t say what it was and no money was mentioned. It could have been cleaning Trump’s toilets. The paper said I was offered a hundred thousand pounds a year for the rest of my life and that I demanded a million pounds for my property, which is rubbish. The only thing I demanded was to be left in peace.

There’s a ton of material out there about it. But most of it is from 2007 to 2012 or so, and not too much is getting written about it now. I would imagine some of the candidates might use this Scotland material against Trump (including the fact that he said Forbes “lives like a pig” and is “the village idiot”), but I haven’t seen anyone going in that direction so far. I have very little doubt, however, that the Democrats would use it when and if the time came.

    Sorry for the late reply, football got in the way and I lost…

    Yes, I had always heard that number and just assumed it correct. We all know what assume means…

    In the article I referenced however, it is the grandson that “remembers” a 1.9mil offer. But that is not where I got the number from. I had just always heard it thrown around and assumed (that word again) it reliable.

    I did read the article, read it originally and then re-read it today.

    Some of these negotiations may be by simple discussion, prior to making an official offer. Not the norm in small real estate deals but at that level who knows.

    I’m under no illusion that Trump is a saint by the way, never have been. I may see that as a benefit.

    Regarding Scotland, I think almost every big development runs into issues with locals either wanting exaggerated sums of money or just simply having no interest in selling. I do not find this unusual. I’m on record as opposing Kelo or anything like it. But I have no problem with trump or anyone else making offers to purchase land for a development. I do not see how this is a condemnation of the man.

Barry:

You write:

I think almost every big development runs into issues with locals either wanting exaggerated sums of money or just simply having no interest in selling. I do not find this unusual. I’m on record as opposing Kelo or anything like it. But I have no problem with trump or anyone else making offers to purchase land for a development. I do not see how this is a condemnation of the man.

But those are not the things being objected to. If that was all Trump did, no problem. As I stated in that post I wrote on the subject:

It’s Trump’s prerogative to approve of Kelo, and it’s certainly understandable that someone in his line of work might have that point of view. He has every right to build his projects, and to try to buy the land of those with adjacent property.

Those are not the issues. The issues are as follows:
(1) There is no evidence that the locals “wanted exaggerated sums of money,” or that Trump offered such sums.
(2) The land he wanted of theirs was not in order to build his developments. He had plenty of land to do that in each case. With Coking, Trump wanted the land for a limo staging area, according to Trump. With Holmes and his recalcitrant neighbors, Trump wanted their land because he thought their modest homes spoiled the view for his golf patrons.
(3) This last part may be the most unusual part of all, and the most characteristic of Trump. Some people may also find it the most objectionable. When the people wouldn’t get out, he decided to publicly and personally smear them, calling Coking’s property “terrible” and calling Holmes “the village idiot” and a man who “lives like a pig,” among other things (neither of which is true; Holmes is obviously intelligent and his property was a typical small farm).

I can’t say I’m familiar with what all developers do, but I think that in particular #3 is unusual and uncalled-for.

But more importantly, we are not just evaluating Trump as a real-estate developer. We are evaluating him as a person and as a potential president, one who either cares or does not care about the rights of individuals, and either respects or disrespects them as human beings.

    Neo,

    You certainly have your own belief about the big developers and perhaps you are right. OTOH, I have seen a lot of projects in both NC and around the country with some sniping going on between the principals involved when there are holdouts (for lack of a better description). I saw it when the just beaten Panthers stadium was being built. There is actually a small area very close to the stadium, maybe 500 sq ft that is bordered by chain link fence all around, a holdout that would not sale… Lots of acrimony going on, on both sides. It is not the only development that has these issues. I doubt very seriously that any large project doesn’t have some of this. For this reason I am not persuaded by #3. It is difficult if not impossible to know who threw the first set of insults.

    Anyway, I don’t want a creampuff as president. I’m just not so sure your description implies the character issue you think it does. There is plenty of other evidence that Trump can be and is a fairly nice person. One thing you will notice, with all the absolute Trump hatred thrown around, I’ve yet to see any close friends, co-workers, or employee’s come forward with “bad” stories.
    YMMV

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend