The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

First off, World News Daily? Seriously? That's like Kepler quoting The Nation or something.

Also, gotta love a newspaper that quotes solely the briefs and press-releases of a think-tank institute rather than, I don't know, the actual judicial opinion.

What fun would that be? It wouldn't be a very effective way of whipping their readers into a frenzy over this week's OUTRAGE!!!

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Arizona is not in Africa.

Black leaders get holidays in Africa.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Arizona is not in Africa.

I don't care where it is. Water is going to become a scarce resource and just like energy, medicine, and everything else we're going to lag behind. We used to lead. So, in a way we're moving towards Africa while the rest of the World is moving towards what we used to be. And since we're moving towards Africa what better place to start that process than Arizona?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

First off, World News Daily? Seriously? That's like Kepler quoting The Nation or something.

Also, gotta love a newspaper that quotes solely the briefs and press-releases of a think-tank institute rather than, I don't know, the actual judicial opinion.

Yah, CNN isn't a credible source, eh? Figured you'd like them given their liberal bent matches yours. This is reported in a variety of news outlets. Find something substantive to complain about.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Black leaders get holidays in Africa.

As they do in Arizona. You're behind the times.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

You already told us: The "Kenyan King" is stealing the water for illegal aliens. Probably Marxist Muslins from Kenya. It has absolutely nothing to do with the town of Tombstone attempting to use the "emergency" to get a new water system.

No, he's setting it aside for illegals.

Their water system was destroyed by the fire and floods and they are trying to replace it. Oh, wait, you just blindly believe the one comment from the feds while ignoring the rest of the article. You'd do well in a totalitarian society.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Their water system was destroyed by the fire and floods and they are trying to replace it. Oh, wait, you just blindly believe the one comment from the feds while ignoring the rest of the article. You'd do well in a totalitarian society.

Or maybe I "blindly" believe the federal judge who ruled

"Defendants have attempted to accommodate plaintiff's requests to repair water structures, have consistently encouraged plaintiffs to submit site specific information with details as to the work that needs to be performed and the equipment needed such that defendants could properly assess any impacts in the wilderness, and defendants have been receptive to plaintiff's requests and have changed certain requirements after considering plaintiff's concerns...
...it appears that plaintiff's water from the Huachuca Mountains has been substantially restored, plaintiff currently has access to sufficient and safe water between its wells and the Huachuca water, and that plaintiff's claims of a drastic water emergency related to public consumption and fire needs are overstated and speculative."

I'm posting it again because you apparently missed it when unofan posted it before.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Or maybe I "blindly" believe the federal judge who ruled

I'm posting it again because you apparently missed it when unofan posted it before.

You, and the judge, apparently missed that the wells have issues with arsenic, something that's not that unusual here in Arizona. And the CNN article clearly indicates that a lot of the system hasn't been restored.

And yes, I'm sure you blindly believe what judges say when it matches your preconceptions. Some people choose to judge things themselves.

 

[alfablue]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

You, and the judge, apparently missed that the wells have issues with arsenic, something that's not that unusual here in Arizona. And the CNN article clearly indicates that a lot of the system hasn't been restored.

And yes, I'm sure you blindly believe what judges say when it matches your preconceptions. Some people choose to judge things themselves.

Well, not WellS. Credible source CNN quotes this from the mayor

"We were dying here," Henderson said. The city's 1.2 million-gallon reservoir, a concrete tank built on a hilltop overlooking town, ran dry at the end of August. The city had to rely on water from its wells, one of which had high levels of arsenic.

Apparently you missed the part that its only one of the multiple wells that has high arsenic.

Funny that you only consider one side of the story, barely admitting that the water is even being partially restored- and not noting that the platniff has not apparently replied to questions about restoration OR about what do they really need/want to do.

You post in the "what's wrong thread" about the kind of stance you are taking at the moment. Funny.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Well, not WellS. Credible source CNN quotes this from the mayor



Apparently you missed the part that its only one of the multiple wells that has high arsenic.

Funny that you only consider one side of the story, barely admitting that the water is even being partially restored- and not noting that the platniff has not apparently replied to questions about restoration OR about what do they really need/want to do.

You post in the "what's wrong thread" about the kind of stance you are taking at the moment. Funny.

I see a small Arizona town being yanked around by the feds and having major water supply problems and the feds caring more about wilderness than people, and I'm going to have an opinion about it.

If you want to know more about the arsenic wells, read the Goldwater filing in the case. Well #1 is over the allowable arsenic limit. Well #2 is below the limit now, but at risk of going above. Well #3 had to be shut down because of excessive arsenic levels.

 

[alfablue]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I see a small Arizona town being yanked around by the feds and having major water supply problems and the feds caring more about wilderness than people, and I'm going to have an opinion about it.

If you want to know more about the arsenic wells, read the Goldwater filing in the case. Well #1 is over the allowable arsenic limit. Well #2 is below the limit now, but at risk of going above. Well #3 had to be shut down because of excessive arsenic levels.

It's pretty clear that you see something that you can complain about the Federal Goverment, that's for sure. It's also clear that based on that, you don't even want to even pretend that there are two sides to this story, and that there are laws that govern what is going on, since it actually made it to a court. And of the law that has been quoted in "credible source CNN"- the law is OVER 50 YEARS OLD. You'd think by now they'd have to work around it, and would have had to do some maintenence on the water source....

It's nice to know that interent surfers like you know more than the mayor of the town does about his own water source. Maybe you should move there to help.

All you see is Anything vs. Obama, and you jump on it. Don't pretend that you, and people just like you, who's entire goal in life is to discredit the government, are not part of the problem.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

It's pretty clear that you see something that you can complain about the Federal Goverment, that's for sure. It's also clear that based on that, you don't even want to even pretend that there are two sides to this story, and that there are laws that govern what is going on, since it actually made it to a court. And of the law that has been quoted in "credible source CNN"- the law is OVER 50 YEARS OLD. You'd think by now they'd have to work around it, and would have had to do some maintenence on the water source....

It's nice to know that interent surfers like you know more than the mayor of the town does about his own water source. Maybe you should move there to help.

All you see is Anything vs. Obama, and you jump on it. Don't pretend that you, and people just like you, who's entire goal in life is to discredit the government, are not part of the problem.

The law is over 50 years old. Tombstone has been using these water sources for 130 years, long before the Forest Service even existed. They are the new interlopers, not Tombstone. But, you'd know that if you'd actually read the article instead of surfing it for a quote or two. I give credit to Obama when it's deserved (like getting OBL, and showing some willingness to do a budget deal last year), and I call him on things when he messes up, which he's done a lot here in Arizona.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

And yes, I'm sure you blindly believe what judges say when it matches your preconceptions.

And yes, I'm sure you blindly believe what World Net Daily says when it matches your preconceptions.

Some people choose to judge things themselves.

Not you, apparently.

ETA: I like that in this case the ruling of a federal judge is somehow less credible than a right-wing rag. Amazing.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

SCOTUS rules 9 - 0 today on a Social Security survivor's benefits case....and they cite the actual text of the statute itself as their reason...

Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said....Congress had specified the method to determine eligibility for benefits, and the court could not create "a uniform federal rule the statute's text scarcely supports."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...18062956367588.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

 

[bronconick]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

The law is over 50 years old. Tombstone has been using these water sources for 130 years, long before the Forest Service even existed. They are the new interlopers, not Tombstone. But, you'd know that if you'd actually read the article instead of surfing it for a quote or two. I give credit to Obama when it's deserved (like getting OBL, and showing some willingness to do a budget deal last year), and I call him on things when he messes up, which he's done a lot here in Arizona.

So, your stance is that as long as something existed or you were doing something before a law was passed, you're not required to follow that law on the legal basis of "I was here first!"

Absent a grandfather clause, your argument is best left in the hands of six year olds, who are the only ones likely to buy it.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

So, your stance is that as long as something existed or you were doing something before a law was passed, you're not required to follow that law on the legal basis of "I was here first!"

Absent a grandfather clause, your argument is best left in the hands of six year olds, who are the only ones likely to buy it.

You're not familiar with the basics of water law in the west, are you?

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

You're not familiar with the basics of water law in the west, are you?

Bob

Isn't it if I have been drawing X gallons (cubic feet) from the water source nobody can do anything to diminish my rights or access to X? I am relying on memory of Michener's Centennial for this.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Bob

Isn't it if I have been drawing X gallons (cubic feet) from the water source nobody can do anything to diminish my rights or access to X? I am relying on memory of Michener's Centennial for this.

Whoever was there first using the water is a huge determining factor in western water law. That's why in the big California water fight between the cities and farming parts of the sate, California's cities couldn't just grab the water from irrigation interests in the Central and Imperial vallies, but rather had to work out a deal that was acceptable to irrigation interests.

So, bronconick's mocking "I was there first" actually is a finding that carries enormous weight in determining water rights in the west. Especially in cases like Tombstone's, where their claim precedes (in their case by quite a few years) the statehood of Arizona.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

So, your stance is that as long as something existed or you were doing something before a law was passed, you're not required to follow that law on the legal basis of "I was here first!"

If I am not mistaken, in zoning disputes over land use, the "I was here first" rule is more commonly called an "easement."

Not all easements are a result of "I was here first" claims; all "I was here first" claims, whether upheld or tossed, are one form of easement.

From Wikipedia:

An easement is a certain right to use the real property of another without possessing it. It is "best typified in the right of way which one landowner, A, may enjoy over the land of another, B."

Easements are helpful for providing pathways across two or more pieces of property or allowing an individual to fish in a privately owned pond. An easement is considered as a property right in itself at common law and is still treated as a type of property in most jurisdictions.

In somewhat analogous fashion, states that allow people to own houses on the ocean only permit ownership up to the high tide line; that area of the beach between high tide line and the water generally cannot be claimed by any one particular homeowner.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Bob

Isn't it if I have been drawing X gallons (cubic feet) from the water source nobody can do anything to diminish my rights or access to X? I am relying on memory of Michener's Centennial for this.

Wonder what happens when there isn't enough water to go around...