anon_
2d ago
Yeah, but it's also why not every deliberate legislative action that materially impacts a business, even if it causes real harm, can be a taking. That would imply that once those laws are passed, they can never be repealed.
anon_
3d ago
It's not even an option in any traditional sense. It pegs the option to the auction's strike price, which is nonsensical.
anon_
3d ago
It's not one body, it's every locality!
If your argument here is "the optimal size of a town is somewhat smaller than the current size", I can see that.
anon_
3d ago
The reason I say this is because when Anthropic and GPT hiked their prices – which was probably aligning the value closer to their overall cost to manufacture the product – there was (apparently) an immediate and noticeable climb-down from high-volume AI use on the part of corporate America.
This is because, prior, corporate America told everyone to go and experiment with potential AI uses.
The climb-down was almost entirely pruning the bad/wasteful rather than actual narrowing the scope.
anon_
3d ago
FWIW, I would get rid of zoning and permit restrictive deeds including racial.
This is incoherent. There's no philosophical difference between "I am buying this land and subdividing it with a restrictive covenant that it may only have single family homes" and "I am founding a town and passing a zoning ordinance that only allows SFH".
anon_
3d ago
It's not an original mover problem to SCOTUS logic, it's a baseline definition problem in the 5A. Defining a "taking" requires comparing against some counterfactual to compare against.
anon_
3d ago
Framing deliberate government action as a "business risk" is ridiculous. If a mobster shows up at your door expressing his sincere concern about the flammability of your property, you wouldn't call your protection money payment a "business risk,
Let me give you an alternate example. Massachusetts mostly prohibits grocery stores from hard liquor. As a result, a substantial fraction of shopping plazas that have a grocery store also have a liquor store.
It is a deliberate government action to repeal those prohibitions and allow the grocery stores to sell liquor. It is also a business risk to those liquor stores as they would likely lose significant business to the larger grocery store that can offer better prices (due to amortizing fixed costs over a larger sales base).
It is, however, insane, to think that MA cannot repeal those laws without running afoul of the 5A.
So where does this land? I think a mobster or government specifically targeting individual properties for regulation is likely illegal (as under Penn) but that the uniform application of general laws is fine.
anon_
3d ago
I cannot see how the lost value of your property is not a taking!
The issue courts have seen with this logic is that vast swaths of regulation lower the value of property, including longstanding practices like zoning and setbacks and even nuisance. A property might indeed be more valuable if the owner can store cars on the front lawn or dam a stream.
Where I think the line is currently drawn is that regulation cannot completely extinguish the value of a property and it can't be specifically targeted. That's a workable legal one, but probably a suboptimal policy.
[ BTW, that court case is actually a pretty good example of bad facts making bad law. A mobile home situation is one where the "renter" owns the home on top of the pad and is substantially invested in an asset that costs more to move than it's worth. This is probably one of the strongest cases for how a landlord/tenant situation can be financially coercive because the realistic cost to the tenant of moving out is giving up a huge asset. ]
anon_
3d ago
In this case, no, but we have to understand that NJ specifically did the thing where they label it ROFR but it operates totally differently. In the standard understanding, ROFR would be the option to purchase the property at the winning auction bid.
anon_
16d ago
It's not quite as bad as you make it out -- SCOTUS has placed limits on warrants, at least as to generality and specificity. Groh v. Ramirez & Riley v. California come to mind. They only mostly disagree with you :-)
Also, while McNeely holds that a blood draw is valid, Winston v Lee holds that a surgery to remove a bullet isn't. So there's some cognizable limit there too.
anon_
16d ago
Actually someone on X did a post on it. The gist of it is that right now, the ECHR considers (dubiously, but so it is) refoulment to be akin torture.
To do this, Sweden would have to
- Convert a proportional-to-population majority of the parliaments of Europe
- Have those parliaments send representatives to PACE (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) such that they have a bare majority
- Have government put forth based judicial nominees to the ECHR and PACE approve then
- Bring a case overturning all that precedent
- Remigrate
In practice, there is no way for Sweden as a national unit, to accomplish this.
anon_
16d ago
That's not a good argument that a specific statute (from 1934, no less, before my dad was born) covers it.
anon_
16d ago
And it's just a punt onto the merits: I fully expect the 5th to go "okay, it's a reasonable search", maybe even snark about how technically precedent doesn't require warranted searches to be reasonable, and then SCOTUS to deny cert on the eventual appeal.
Why wouldn't it be a reasonable search, given that the police in Chatrie had a warrant?
The only thing the Supreme Court seems to be saying here is that you can't completely punt the issue by declaring it a non-search (because reasons) rather than a reasonable one.
anon_
16d ago
The question isn't about whether it's controversial, it's about whether Congress in enacting a specific statue, forbade it.
A legislator facing this argument could come up with a cogent reason to agree with you, but that doesn't mean that the law that some past (1934!) Congress chose to write forbids it.
anon_
16d ago
I’ve never had an actual bro that was East Asian.
My lived experience (heh) is that the East Asian bros somehow end up more-bro. Some kind of overfitting thing.
anon_
16d ago
One steel man aside is that there is a substantial history of an independent central bank in the Founding Era whereas for-cause-only removals for administrative agencies are a much more recent thing.
One can argue whether such history embodies a real rule of Constitutional interpretation, ie. that a document should not be interpreted to forbid what its contemporary supporters were doing, but it's not entirely wacky.
anon_
1mo ago
The fourth report dropped a few weeks back, this time focusing on involuntary childlessness and infertility
I'm not very certain on this, but I understood that involuntary childlessness is a smaller factor in overall TFR declines than the reduction in the number of kids in each family. IOW, the problem is not the number of 0s.
I asked an LLM (also not a great marker of certainty) as well:
62% of the decline is driven by smaller family sizes among parents (fewer progressions to second, third, or fourth children).
38% of the decline is driven by an increase in lifetime childlessness (more people ending their reproductive years with zero children).
Unpopular though it might be among certain cohorts to point out, the solution to declining fertility reasonably also should somehow involve convincing women to have children while they're still young; not enabling every pregnancy to be geriatric.
Indeed, and that's why focusing on the childless is less productive. We should be focusing on getting the 1-kid families to 2, the 2s to 3 and so forth. One important factor there is making sure they start while they still have time.
anon_
2mo ago
You are absolutely right, a product is a series of decisions.
But to me, what AI absolutely changes is that software is perpetually wet clay. So I doubt that you can train an agent to take those decisions, but you could absolutely have one take your feedback about it and turn around and do the needful.
anon_
2mo ago
Isn't the more parsimonious explanation that the Court wants to see what the En Banc 3CA does with ANJRPC.
There's an old saying that a right delayed is a right denied
There's another one, which is that the law is moved by people more patient than you or I.
anon_
2mo ago
He was in favor of AA as a temporary corrective required to rebalance the scales. It is not at all clear that 70+ years later he would still endorse it. And in a decade or so, everyone in the US will have been born after the CRA.
At the very least, consider Return of the King as the alternative view.
But a town can vote to divide itself. Happens all the time.
More options
Context Copy link