I mod a worryingly growing list of communities. Ask away if you have any questions or issues with any of the communities.
I also run the hobby and nerd interest website scratch-that.org.
It is called the Takings Clause by the Supreme Court, Cornell Law, and pretty much anyone else who talks about it. Expect the word “take” in a discussion about it.
The clause itself uses the word “take”. Taking with compensation is still taking.
It is called the Takings Clause by
They talked about just compensation, but the change and precedent provided by the Kelo case was in the lowering of the standard for taking. The case also set the precedent that the government could take private land not just for public use, but to transfer that land to another private party. Thus the focus on that. Compensation or not, the land was taken against the owner’s will for the purpose of enriching a corporation.
The Prosecutors: Legal Briefs, episode 117.
The show is hosted by two prosecutors, so in various episodes on criminal cases their opinions skew heavily pro-prosecutor, but when laying out facts like going through a SCOTUS case they tend to be more fact based and less opinion based, I have found.
cannot be set higher than an amount that is reasonably likely to ensure the defendant’s presence at the trial
That is a sentence that you can really roll over in your head. It does not necessarily also mean an amount within the resources of the defendant. I watch a lot of hearings, and something I’ve seen at least a few times is a set of allegations and past facts (usually something like multiple failures to appear in the past, and/or fleeing from police) in a situation where the actual charge being bailed on has a statutory requirement that bail be offered. The judge doesn’t want to let the person out on bail, so therefore sets the bail at $1 million or something which is functionally the same thing as not giving them bail.
Usually this triggers a motion for a hearing about the bail amount by the defense lawyer to argue down the amount, but if the court date on the charge is earlier than court date for the motion, it becomes a moot issue.
I’m not an expert, but I did just listen to a podcast on this (which basically makes me an expert, right?)
I think yes, technically, legally the federal government could. ‘Kelo v. City Of New London’ ruled that purely economic development was a sufficient justification for using the takings power (eminent domain). The reaction by most states was to make their own laws limiting eminent domain powers so that the Kelo situation couldn’t happen with the state government, but the federal government has never passed laws limiting its powers. Bills to limit federal power like S.1313 were introduced but never passed.
In the case of sci-fi, most of us are more responsive to online marketing campaigns and this film has the online presence of an Amish priest.
Even then, who is this movie for? Scifi nerds who liked Cloud Atlas but wished it was more incoherent and Roman themed?
From what I’m hearing, one of the antagonists is a thinly veiled Rupert Murdoch. Sounds like $120 million to pretentiously explain that Fox News is bad to an audience who figured that out two decades ago.
Eggers seems like an excellent choice to make a period piece vampire movie that is actually effective and doesn’t come off as a joke. The Witch was tense and moody when a huge amount of the tension was just characters looking into the woods. Effective because Eggers showed just enough to keep the threat forefront. The Lighthouse was something of a swing and a miss plotwise, being about 15% too confusingly esoteric to keep the tension, but individual scenes and sequences were effective and tense. It was also a very well shot black and white movie. While Nosferatu isn’t going to be black and white, it looks like it will have some very desaturated sequences, and knowing that those will be shot in a way where I can actually see what’s happening is positive.
The shadow of the hand over the city was great, and I swear a reference to something but I can’t quite place it.
Yes, finally. This is exactly the kind of case I’m looking for. Now I can dig into the details of the court documents.
That is just one of the things that seems very off to me about the claim.
my guess is that it happens sometimes
I just want to see one case.
Maybe someone on Lemmy has found one.
And so, my question.
I’ve seen the claim about Target online for years now, sometimes even with people in comments saying they know someone (or know someone who knows someone) that this happened to, but even after all this time no easily found court case. Nobody who ever says they have first hand knowledge ever comes back to say what case it is. It seems like this would be a slamdunk piece of content for one of the various YouTube channels that covers legal drama, but I haven’t seen it. None of the news articles covering Target’s Judge Dredd tier stoploss ever have an update linking to a case. I just want to see it.
As infamous as Target’s stoploss is, I figured people more plugged in would already know where to look.
Thanks, but not relevant to my question.
I just want to say, Plumber would be a great codename for a megacorp/government assassin that takes out would-be whistleblowers.
The plumber takes care of leaks.
Seems to be one of the movies where the themes eat the story. The trailer made it seem as such.
I understand the turn of phrase. I don’t quite know what you mean in the application here.
You are, but you have to figure out how to get it all to work together yourself. That means physically, electrically, and in software. All the things you listed are problems that need to be overcome. If you have the ability, you can do this, but you yourself have to do it or find someone who specializes in such particular work. Most people have neither the skills, time, or patience to do this.