What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Priceless said:
Wonder what happens when there isn't enough water to go around...
Click to expand...
Absent other factors I think it basically works that the last one in is the first one out. I'm not sure that this system is the most efficient, as once you're the first in, you don't even need to conserve your use or anything, but it is the system in place. Of course lawyers have been fighting about western water rights for many decades and will surely continue to do so.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Bob Gray said:
Absent other factors I think it basically works that the last one in is the first one out. I'm not sure that this system is the most efficient, as once you're the first in, you don't even need to conserve your use or anything, but it is the system in place. Of course lawyers have been fighting about western water rights for many decades and will surely continue to do so.
Click to expand...
So the answer is, when there's no longer enough water to go around, the lawyers get the water. ;)
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Kepler said:
So the answer is, when there's no longer enough water to go around, the lawyers get the water. ;)
Click to expand...
Well, we all know that the two things that are expected to survive a nucular blast are cockroaches and lawyers!
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

joecct said:
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.
Click to expand...

Water rights are distinctly different between the east and west, with the mississippi generally being the dividing line. One school of thought is first in time, first in right. The other is, essentially, everyone gets their reasonable share regardless of historical usage. The latter is called a riparian system and is prevelant in the eastern u.s. and other common law jurisdictions.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I'll tell you this much, the first one in dam sure won't be the last one out if it starts with an M and ends with an exico. :D
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

duper said:
I'll tell you this much, the first one in dam sure won't be the last one out if it starts with an M and ends with an exico. :D
Click to expand...
I'm not real familiar with international water laws, but I think the first in, last out rule is at least primarily domestic. I believe international agreements, like with the Colorado River flow, are negotiated.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Bob Gray said:
I'm not real familiar with international water laws, but I think the first in, last out rule is at least primarily domestic. I believe international agreements, like with the Colorado River flow, are negotiated.
Click to expand...
Negotiated and broken.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

duper said:
Negotiated and broken.
Click to expand...
Usually I've heard more claims that what was negotiated wasn't fair than that the agreement that was reached was broken.

But, in the end the point is that it isn't relevant to discussions of western U.S. water law.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Now this is interesting....*


43 different US-based organizations affiliated with the Catholic Church are suing the administration under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act....a bill sponsored by Ted Kenney and then Rep. Chuck Schumer....a bill which "sailed through Congress with broad bipartisan support in response to an unpopular decision by the Supreme Court that was seen as curbing Native Americans' religious freedom to use peyote, a traditional hallucinogen."

-- from The Hill as cited by Alana Goodman in today's print edition of The New York Post, not available (yet?) on their website.


There are so many delicious ironies here. :)




* aside to Kepler: in the old-fashioned "innocent" sense of the word...
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Bob Gray said:
Usually I've heard more claims that what was negotiated wasn't fair than that the agreement that was reached was broken.

But, in the end the point is that it isn't relevant to discussions of western U.S. water law.
Click to expand...
The negotiation may well not have been fair, but it has also been roundly broken.

And true, it does not directly apply to Western water law, except in the indirect sense of, when an organization has no respect for either the need of or contractual obligations to a whole other country, why would you be so silly as to think that they would respect a few hundred powerless people in a town that exists only because people love a good story.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

FreshFish said:
Now this is interesting....*
Click to expand...

I don't think that means what you think it means. And there are ironies if you something how think an owner that sold his sports franchise 20 years ago has some kind of relationship with the current one.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

FreshFish said:
Now this is interesting....*


43 different US-based organizations affiliated with the Catholic Church are suing the administration under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act....a bill sponsored by Ted Kenney and then Rep. Chuck Schumer....a bill which "sailed through Congress with broad bipartisan support in response to an unpopular decision by the Supreme Court that was seen as curbing Native Americans' religious freedom to use peyote, a traditional hallucinogen."

-- from The Hill as cited by Alana Goodman in today's print edition of The New York Post, not available (yet?) on their website.


There are so many delicious ironies here. :)




* aside to Kepler: in the old-fashioned "innocent" sense of the word...
Click to expand...

Filing a lawsuit is not interesting. Win it, then maybe we'll talk.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Slap Shot said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. And there are ironies if you something how think an owner that sold his sports franchise 20 years ago has some kind of relationship with the current one.
Click to expand...
.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/G2y8Sx4B2Sk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

duper said:
The negotiation may well not have been fair, but it has also been roundly broken.

And true, it does not directly apply to Western water law, except in the indirect sense of, when an organization has no respect for either the need of or contractual obligations to a whole other country, why would you be so silly as to think that they would respect a few hundred powerless people in a town that exists only because people love a good story.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity, what specific circumstances are you citing that international water treaties have been broken, since you haven't cited specific cases to date.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

FreshFish said:
Judges appointed by Republicans intepret the laws and the Constitution as they are written, and you find it ironic? I suggest "consistent" is a more apt term.
Click to expand...

Why do I have a sneaking suspicion if the 9th Circuit made the exact same ruling, you'd call it judicial activism?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top