Replies to post #114 on Venom and Bile

[BullNBear52]

We had a similar case here a while back.
#msg-6789314

They used pretty much the same argument.

Substantial changes in the judicial interpretation of "public use" have taken place over the past few decades. Until the early 1950's, the courts interpreted the public use doctrine as meaning that property which was taken by government had to be literally used by a public body (e.g., park, school).

More recently, the courts have substantially broadened the notion of public use whereby public use can mean for public benefit or advantage.

I heard one commentator suggest that churches in Manhattan might be the next target for public use condemnations. Wonder how that would fly at the Court. NYC vs St Patrick's Cathedral.

[BullNBear52]

You forgot about the reporters case which most concerns me. If you'd rather move the conversation(s) I'd be interested in your response to that case and this one as well.

#msg-4744912

Congress imo needs to pass a shield law for reporters. In this climate today they would have fried Woodward.

[BullNBear52]

This one does qualify as venom.

#msg-6817772