Seattle Times urges activist court

A couple weeks ago I criticized a Seattle Times editorial urging the state Supreme Court to force Sound Transit to pay off its bonds and stop collecting the car tabs that I-776 attempted to eliminate. I argued that the Times editorial board was wrong both on policy and on points of law.

But in closing, I also took a swipe at the Times’ penchant for instructing courts how to rule on the law:

The Times has an established history of attempting to influence the courts, but personally, I’ve always felt that judicial decisions should be based purely on statute and the constitution, free from the pressure generated by special interest groups like, you know… editorial boards.

Well, they’re at it again.

In a Sunday editorial the Times chides justices for ruling that property owners are “not entitled to actual individualized notice” of condemnation hearings. The Times admits that “the law is fuzzy on it,” but criticizes the court for siding with Sound Transit:

Notice of the property to be condemned should also have been delivered to the people who own it. “Due process of law” should require no less.

As a policy issue, I cannot argue with the Times’ conclusion. If it were my property being considered for condemnation, I would damn well expect to receive an official notice of the hearing.

But… courts don’t decide policy issues, they decide legal issues… so rather than berating justices for ruling based on the statute, the Times should be urging the Legislature to change it.

And I most emphatically object to the headline the Times affixed to the editorial: “More arbitrary taking of land by the court.”

Arbitrary or no, the court did not take anybody’s land… Sound Transit did. All the court did was rule that Sound Transit acted within the constraints of current law in doing so.

Such a grossly slanted headline is particularly irresponsible in the context of the looming battle over the Farm Bureau’s developer windfall initiative. At the very least, such misleading rhetoric fans the flames of the property rights folk. At its worse, one wonders if the Times is telegraphing an intention to aggressively support the Farm Bureau in its efforts?

I do not blame the Times for being disappointed by the court’s ruling, but reasonable people can disagree over the interpretation of “fuzzy” law. And to use this decision as an opportunity to label the court a bunch of arbitrary land stealers, adds nothing constructive to the public debate… and suggests ulterior motives. If Frank Blethen and his editorial board wish to advocate a particular policy position, they should at least be forthright in doing so.

Comments

  1. 1

    LeftTurn spews:

    No people don’t read what you write Goldy. They come here to vent. It’s unfortunate, because you write well. I don’t always agree with you but you are clearly a deep thinker and you carefully write things that are intended to motivate more thought. Of course that’s a waste when it comes to righties. All they think about is WallMart, building prisons, driving pickup trucks, going to KKK meetings, screwing their sisters (and their cows) and finding out from Lush Flimbaugh how they’re supposed to think today.

  2. 2

    klake spews:

    My voice is not silent, and I am exercising my freedom.

    In addition, you do not have a clue as to how to work in a political environment

    Comment by K— 2/20/06 @ 10:06 pm

    K you have no voice if have no name you lost your ID and you are a slave to the system if you live in fear of your leadership. Roger is presently afraid of the right. You lose your respect you are not a living person and you have no color. Follow Bob from Boeing and Bill Fest the have their own color and do not hide behind imagery names and have more freedom than those who live behind the curtain of fear.

  3. 3

    BOB from BOEING spews:

    I guess the closet doors are gone forever — since RR talks about old hard core Republican icon, Joseph McCarthy, Senator Inquisitor, looking for commies and homos in government, need to tell him about Joes’ dowh side boyfriend, his counsel, Roy Cohn.

    Might be a better movie than lonely Cowboys. On the History Channel — some day. Script writer needed.

  4. 5

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    75

    “K what is your real name? Why don’t you id who you are … ? Comment by klake— 2/20/06 @ 9:38 pm”

    So he doesn’t get stalked and harassed by rightwing sociopaths.

  5. 6

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Where is Joe McCarthy now that we need him? Oh that’s right — that lying fuck drank himself to death.

  6. 7

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Reply to 67

    “Who are the Trotskyites – the Times or the Justices? Comment by Jimmy Cattes— 2/20/06 @ 8:36 pm”

    The neoCONS. You didn’t know neo-conservatism — the ideology of the Far Right — is a variant of Trotyskite communism? Let me educate you. These links should get you started:

    http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j061303.html
    http://www.rense.com/general39/meets.htm
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/got.....ied46.html
    http://www.enterstageright.com.....trotp1.htm

    Now do you understand why our Republican friends are against honest elections, free speech, and peace?

  7. 11

    K spews:

    My voice is not silent, and I am exercising my freedom.

    And you do not have a clue as to how to work in a political environment

  8. 12

    klake spews:

    Sorry, klake, I choose not to tell which agency I work for. I am a senior manager. I have significant access and responsibility.

    Sorry K you lost your ID to bad you have no voice with no name. I’m a Chief that is my first name and who I’m am and that is my title. I’m a goverment worker and I wear a uniform. Yes I do have a name Klake.

  9. 13

    klake spews:

    To bad your voice is silent due to polital correctness. you live in a country that is not free, and you can not talk freely. You are a slave to your job. I feel real sorry for you.

  10. 16

    K spews:

    JCH-

    I have proudly indicated more than once on this blog that I am a King County employee.

    As for “hack”, you can shove it. I can point to several significant accomplishments over my career.

  11. 17

    klake spews:

    Sorry to pop your bubble.

    Comment by K— 2/20/06 @ 8:16 pm
    Who is K? and what goverment job do you hold?

  12. 18

    K spews:

    Sorry, klake, I choose not to tell which agency I work for. I am a senior manager. I have significant access and responsibility.

    And nothing to do with Elections.

  13. 19

    klake spews:

    As for “hack”, you can shove it. I can point to several significant accomplishments over my career.

    Comment by K— 2/20/06 @ 9:32 pm
    K what is your real name? Why don’t you id who you are and do you have something to hide? Do you stuff ballot box’s?
    OR take other peoples property away to give to the poor?

  14. 21

    K spews:

    I am in an implementing agency. I builg things. I get permits, I do not issue them.

    And that’s all you get from me, about me.

  15. 22

    Proud To Be An Ass spews:

    oops. “Reach” is a typo–should be “read” in #69 abv. Although “retch” may work (broadly speaking).

  16. 23

    Proud To Be An Ass spews:

    Proud –

    Who are the Trotskyites – the Times or the Justices?

    Comment by Jimmy Cattes— 2/20/06 @ 8:36 pm

    Jimmy, me boy, if you had ever dealt with a real Trotskyite, you would never have asked that question. Here’s a clue: Have you ever tried to have a rational discussion with a follower of Lyndon LaRouche? Have you read much of Stephan Sharkansky’s blog? You reach much of Bruce Ramsey when his scatter brained libertarianism turns (apparently randomly)its attention to Social Security “reform” or the “death tax”?

    Get the idea?

  17. 24

    K spews:

    klake @ 51-

    I posted at noon and then went on with my life. And I never post from work. And we have internet tracking on our computers and I periodically verify that none of my staff are using King County computers for other than work purposes.

    Sorry to pop your bubble.

  18. 25

    Proud To Be An Ass spews:

    Goldy,

    I guess “judicial activism” is in the eyes of the beholder, eh? Yep, those right-wing Trotskyites and their moral absolutism are revealed for what they truly are–worshippers on the altar of naked (excuse the term from this moral relativist) political power.

  19. 26

    Proud To Be An Ass spews:

    Hey! What was it about Cougar’s post @ 49 that turned this in to the bold zone?

  20. 28

    marks spews:

    Jim Barnes @63

    You are a babe in the deep dark woods.

    Well, now that you mention it, I’ve been told I am really good looking in natural settings. I had my picture taken with Bambi at Disneyland, too…

    I heard it live on TV. Live action. Every nuance of face and fidget.

    Heard it on live TV with every nuance of face and fidget? Those are good ears, dude…

    I was reading (and actively posting on) this site back then. It (the case) was based upon the notion that the Rossi lawyers thought they would get a {politically} activist judge, and instead they had their asses handed to them. That was the point I was attempting to make (evidently not well enough) @47.

    My apologies for the lack of clarity and for idiofying you…

  21. 29

    Jim Barnes spews:

    No, idiot. Bridges could have taken the
    deal from his buddy Foreman, and ruled for
    Rossi with some semblence of reasons, then he would have been overturned by the top court.

    Instead he chose to keep his nose clean and slavage his tattred career.

    You are a babe in the deep dark woods. Also, had Bridges given Wenatchee anothr black eye, he might have been voted out. Cushy job, judges in rural counties.

    By the way. Why would I read it, I heard it live on TV. Live action. Every nuance of face and fidget.

  22. 31

    [JCH] spews:

    HARARE – ROBERT MUGABE is 82 today, and the children of the 21st of February Movement are getting ready to party with a jamboree of cakes and fizzy drinks. Their organisation is dedicated to doing good works in the name of Mr Mugabe’s birthday, and the children are deemed worthy of participating in celebrations for Africa’s oldest and longest-serving leader. [Party at REV AA's house!! Happy birthday to Uncle Robert!!!!!!!!!!!!!]

  23. 32

    Jim Barnes spews:

    marks — If you are a fan of Scalia and Thomas, why don’t you say so?

    And the old news election case was a slam dunk for those reading this site back them. No massive fraud, no case. Just the usual election mistakes even magnified in a close election, no case.

    Only the mad dog Rossi claque was surprised.

  24. 33

    marks spews:

    fyi, BOB, I was not “rge[ing]…about Bridges.” He made the right decision based on the ridiculous “evidence” brought before the court.

  25. 34

    marks spews:

    Jim Barnes,

    And the old news election case was a slam dunk for those reading this site back them.

    (damn, I am perpetually being hounded by dolts who assume I said something I did not)…

    What part of Read Judge Bridges opinion… did you not fucking understand???

    Did you understand the context? Obviously not, because I would then not be calling you an idiot…He made the only decision available to him.

  26. 35

    RUFUS spews:

    couple weeks ago I criticized a Seattle Times editorial urging the state Supreme Court to force Sound Transit to pay off its bonds and stop collecting the car tabs that I-776 attempted to eliminate.

    Oh- What are the poor donks to do? The donks need that money to corrupt politicians and to siphon off union dues. Oh what a travesty.

  27. 36

    [JCH] spews:

    Off Topic: Why are the Cubans swimming for Florida? They have “guvment” education, health care, all jobs are “guvment” jobs, and “progressive” politicians right in Havana. Hell, some libs say Cuba is a perfect “Hillary Village”! Bob, Mr. X, RR, mark, Cougar, help me here! [hehe]

  28. 37

    marks spews:

    BOB,

    Interesting response.

    I wide ranged for a reason, and I’m sure you understand why. In a limited case, you can reason away as to why a court can go nuclear. It is whether or not you decide you wish to be consistent that you would opine on any of the others.

    Thanks for the limited scope…

  29. 38

    BOB from BOEING spews:

    correction — case to Wenatchee, his home town – in last para above (furnace problems, very cold fingers)

  30. 40

    BOB from BOEING spews:

    marks

    Go to law school and question a professor. I just have a lay line of thought. Lots of highly paid experts out there, choose what you want to hear and they will charge you to tell it to you.

    This is a limited case, not all over the map as in —- what about — what about — what about.

    Four of the silly old justices out of 9 did not agree that a notice on the web site of Sound Transit was addequate notice to the object pesons of the adverse eminent domaine proceeding.

    The crux of the case was not simply should be be notice – yes or no – but notice but adequate notice. And I think one justice said in dissent, better to send a lettter.

    When the law was written the net did not exist. Thus, the old standartd would have been the mail. That being the widely used standard for most correspondence in most situtions.

    You want to rge with a legal scholar about Bridges, go find one.

    This is not about elections — just to clarify your wide ranging post.

    As an aside – I hought the lawyers on ther R side were totally stupid to go to Wenatchee. I predicted the outcome to all who were interested among my friends. And I bet you think it was all about the law.

    Remember the big bogus sex scandals in Wenatchee — Bridges was he judge in many of the cases later thrown out and appealed en mass. He obviously was sloppy in those cases. I thought he would be slow to nullify an election hastily so as to redeem his own judical career. And the media was watching every word, uhlike the sloppy rulings in the pumped up sex cases/

    Of course, I did not charege anyone for my insight into human nature and courts — And Dale Foreman who helped push the case to Olympia looked foolish among others.

  31. 41

    Creamed Feet spews:

    Everything you have had to say is going to be 1000% more relative than what I am going to say. So I am going to just leave it at that and hope Bush starts removing his head from his rear cavity!

  32. 42

    klake spews:

    None of the goverment workers are posting today? No access to internet from home? Do goverment workers only post and read on goverment time? If we move all the goverment offices to Gold Bar Seattle would not have traffic problems today. Let cut goverment jobs and we would not need to expand our highway systems. If you need any help from the goverment you can take the light rail to Gold Bar. Hell take Grayhound!

  33. 43

    Cougar spews:

    On this Presidents Day what better way to honor our Presidents (current not included) than with a quote from history?

    “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
    ….James Madison….

    How true those meaningful words ring in our lives today!!!!!

  34. 44

    Mark The Redneck spews:

    Holy shit Goldy – Are you suggesting that the Times has a political agenda? Wow… whoodathunkit…

  35. 45

    marks spews:

    BOB @43,

    I’m trying to understand this, in your words:

    Concept like the Right to Privacy have been elaborated.
    How much of this elaboration has the legislative branch been a part of? If answer is zero:
    This is fine with you for what reason?

    If it is not clearly there than it is not constitutional.
    And there is something wrong with that? What if the court decided, in their judgment, that Rossi had won because no ecological fallacy was proved, and thus the matter was settled on somebody’s spreadsheet?

    Just as Goldy and RR have argued, if the legislature did not very specifically say it – the court cannot rule. I would submit that in matters of clarity, the court can indeed act.
    Seems to be a mutually exclusive arrangement. If the legislature did not specify, and the court can’t rule, they are not allowed to act on it. Read Judge Bridges opinion…

    Activist court clears away the fuzziness, updates to this era, senses the underlying issues in a true historical context.
    This is by far my most favoritest (sic):
    How ‘bout those “activists” on the SCOTUS in the KELO vs NEW LONDON decision?
    Extra credit: Who wrote and joined the Majority decision, and who concurred?

    Further, what if those “activists” you seem to like had a different philosophy (ideological spectrum)? It’s only fun and games until someone gets birdshot in their eye…

  36. 46

    BOB from BOEING spews:

    RR – the only pervasive flaw I have with arrorneys is there linear thinking. I thinb there is some Cout authority to clify if the need is consistent with many cases comparable where the law is bold and clear.

    Sven – No, the Court in a very divided 5-4 opinion punted. Punting is the favorite game of timid Judges. Good politics I suppose since there is notcontroversy when you run for election.

  37. 47

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Courts always have authority to uphold constitutional rights or to declare legislative enactments unconstitutional, but that’s a different animal from interpretating legislation. Unless a law is unconstitutional, courts are bound by legislative intent.

  38. 48

    sven spews:

    so bob, what happened here when the court sided against the rights of the home owner, and denied the necessity to notice?

    The court wasnt very activist….

  39. 49

    BOB from BOEING spews:

    Will try to explain in my non attorney — but activist mindset.

    Listening to a panel about Barbara Jordan on C- span. She was a black woman from Texas who was distinguished in her Congressional career and well known for the speech about how the Constitution was intact, and America was intact during the Nixon resignation.

    Ms. Jordan also was famous for a speech where she says, We the People === left her out. Point is that the Federal Constitution has changed, molded, moved into changing times — a living, pliable document. Things not mentioned have been added. Concept like the Right to Privacy have been elaborated.

    Strict constructionists like Justice Clarence Thomas believe the Constitution is literal. If it is not clearly there than it is not constitutional. It is an amazingly short sighted and anti modern idea. But that is largely what they believe.

    Just as Goldy and RR have argued, if the legislature did not very specifically say it — the court cannot rule. I would submit that in matters of clarity, the court can indeed act. Without belaboring the point there are dozens of places in many types of laws where notice absolute. If you do not give proper notice to a tenant, you CANNOT raise the rents, or evict them. Ironclad. Many other areas where Notice is clearly spelled out, even in some cases requiring posting on the door, as in foreclosure of a home.

    In this case I think it is fundamental to the right of any property owner, small or large, to have a lot of real notice if a public sector entity is about to use the power of eminent domain to acquire their property.

    Where there are gaps of fuzziness in an area like this, I feel secure that the Supreme Court can spell out the accustomed merits of notice, and precribe. No individual can battle the legal teams or budgets of the mega agencies. Not possible, even if the property is very valuable-and I suspect the property in question was valuable.

    Activist court clears away the fuzziness, updates to this era, senses the underlying issues in a true historical context. Remember Washington came into being as a populist state with a stronger set of rights to the everyday citizen than even the Federal bill of rights. Helping to un stack the deck for everyday property owners locked in conflict with a hostile eminent domain matter seems totally consistent with all the theories of this states’ own original constitution.

    Remember that much of the social evils that we started to change in the 60;s and 70’s were reinforced by strict construction. I am a lefty that really likes this changed society. Fought the old one tooth and nail my entire life.

    .

  40. 50

    Sven spews:

    I don’t either.

    I think that courts should only intervene when the legislatures are clearly in error. The legislature has the responsibility to decide the issues, the Courts should be a final assurance check, not an alternate legislative body.

    Having said that, the court in this decision, and the SCOTUS in their chance at emminent domain ruling have erred horribly in refusing to uphold the constitutional rights of homeowners against local government abuses.

  41. 51

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    34

    “I like bold – activst court.s.”

    Based on my 30+ years of experience as a lawyer, I don’t.

  42. 52

    bill spews:

    Bob, in your post at 9:09, you said “I do not subscribe to constructionist doctrines for either he State Supremes or the other ones in DC.”

    At 11:30, you said “I like bold – activst court.s.”

    As those are mutually antagonistic statements, can you clarify?

  43. 54

    Sven spews:

    WOW

    A post from goldy that i sit in complete agreement on.

    I have nothing to whine about. i am undone.

    Seriously, excellent post Goldy. While I too deplore the courts decisions, and indeed many of the other as well, the charaxtorizations the times used were over the top.

    And pappy should have his memorial.

    s

  44. 55

    Sven spews:

    WOW

    A post from goldy that i sit in complete agreement on.

    I have nothing to whine about. i am undone.

    Seriously, excellent post Goldy. While I too deplore the courts decisions, and indeed many of the other as well, the charaxtorizations the times used were over the top.

    And pappy should have his memorial.

    s

  45. 56

    Jerry Springer Jr. spews:

    JCH @ 26:
    Do you honestly expect anyone here to believe a word that you say? It’s like a clown that attempts to say something serious.

    They need to train you better.

  46. 57

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    25, 28

    Goldy is right, you guys are mistaken. The Times dissed the court for abiding by the Legislature’s authority to make laws, instead of rewriting a flawed law. That would usurp the Legislature’s authority, and destroy checks and balances. The court does NOT have authority to edit or rewrite the Legislature’s work product. This law needs to be fixed by the Legislature, not by the court.

  47. 58

    [JCH] spews:

    More information has surfaced in recent days about Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction programs, and the possible roles of Syria and Russia in spiriting WMD and massive arsenals of conventional munitions out of Iraq prior to the start of the war three years ago. The new information includes audio recordings of 12 hours of conversations from the early 1990s through 2000

    OMG! It sounds like further revelation of the truth of WMD will find its way into the public. The Libs and Democrats will go ballistic if it is proven that WMD did exist. Bush did not lie! Their whole anti-war, anti-American campaign will sink in the muck. Wheee!!

  48. 59

    [JCH] spews:

    31, cont, Facts will not bring about a resolution, but rather will just escalate the rhetoric to the next level. “Were the WMD really a threat to the rest of the world. Or was Bush still at fault for making the threat become viable by pushing Saddam into a corner? We all know Saddam was really such a loving leader who was just trying to defend his country from the evils of the great infidel.”

    In a democrats mind and in the world of the MSM, the one who yells the loudest and conns up the biggest lies, wins the argument. That’s all they’ve got.

  49. 60

    [JCH] spews:

    The Dims and the MSM will simply continue to move the goalpost on WMDs:

    “Oh, Saddam did have nerve gas? Okay, but he didn’t have a nuclear arms program.”

    “Oh, Saddam did have a nuclear arms program, but they had not developed actual arms.”

    “Oh, Saddam did have nuclear arms, but he did not have the delivery systems [or, alternatively, "They were only defensive nuclear arms"],”

    “Oh, Saddam did have the delivery systems, but the arms were not mounted on them.”

    “Oh, Saddam did have mounted nuclear arms, but they were only aimed at Israel.”

    And finally,
    “Oh, Saddam did have mounted nuclear arms aimed at the United States, but that’s old news, everyone knows that. Time to move on. Time for Cheney to come clean about anyone else he might have shot while hunting.”

  50. 61

    BOB from BOEING spews:

    I like bold – activst court.s. No judical punt aftr punt. And I trust courts more than politicans per se.

    Still looking for the right to privacy spelled out in the Federal Constitution. But sure glad, they wrote it in – shaping many society altering decisions of this era. And I think Eleanor would agree, from the grave.

  51. 62

    K spews:

    JCH-

    Liar and thread hijacker. Pay him no mind. When aggressively challenged, he wilts (see last night). Likes to advance false choices. WHo’s kidding who about moving the goal posts. Q- Who threatened the “mushroom cloud”? A-this administration.

    And that’s not even addressing his racisim and homophobia.

  52. 63

    Tree Frog Farmer spews:

    Ok, Goldy.I read, and the re-read your post. Then I re-read some of the posts. I’ll go with Roger Rabbit and you on this one. The law on “legal notice’ is ‘fuzzy, but setting policy from the bench simply has not worked in the past. . .it follows “the drunken man’s walk”.
    Policy like this should be set by the Legislature. However, I see stormy weather on the horizon. There are many vested interests avidly watching any changes in the requirements for “Legal Notification”. Any changes in the patchwork requirements for “Notice” and “Service” we have now will be vigorously opposed by some parties who feel they are somehow given advantages in things as they are. The law here is “fuzzy” precisely because it IS a hot potato.
    Hopefully this apparent ‘injustice’ might provide our Legislators the incentive to tackle this and reform it. I’m not really holding my breath.
    As an aside, I don’t think we are dealing with a ‘postModern view of Government’ so much as Ignorance and a tin ear for the nuance of governing.

  53. 64

    Mr. X spews:

    It was a bad decision, pure and simple. Ever see all of those required legal notices buried in the newspaper classifieds? This ruling now says that the longstanding requirement of public notice really means you get to go fishing for public notification on someone’s website – assuming you have online access at all.

    This was almost as bad a ruling as the one that gutted the Open Meetings Act. I’m as liberal as anyone here (and more than most), and I wonder when liberals stopped worrying about the power of government to screw the little guy.

    Goldy, this was a 5-4 ruling for a reason – it was far from a slam dunk.

    (Oh, and JCH is still a factually challenged homophobic cowardly racist punk)

  54. 65

    Rev. A.A. Tappman: Anababtist spews:

    re 26: But back to the topic at hand and away from that rotting dead horse you’re beating: Maybe the best way to get a good price for land that you know the government is after is to make an offer to the politicians involved to sell it to them “real cheap”…wink wink —if you get my drift.

  55. 66

    [JCH] spews:

    The proof has been right in front of you the entire time. Documents available on the internet, which pass the smell test and are probably genuine, show the link between Saddam and al Qaeda.On October 11th, 2004 an online news service called CNSnews published 42 documents that they claimed came from the Iraq Survey Group. [BUSH LIED!! BUSH LIED!! Oh, He didn't?..........................Never mind.]

  56. 67

    BOB from BOEING spews:

    Goldy – doth protest too much.

    I read you posts very carefully, going back to the election fracas. I just do no agree with most of this one. And my lefty credentials are impeccable. Some posters here are touchy about that.

    In my version of the world, freedom of the press, and the opinions and reporting is produces – they sit in the 50 per cent section of the pie called Democracy in action. All publishing, the Times, the blogs, the newsletter and flyers, weeklies, mags, zines — all, need to say whatever they want in their pages. The readers cogitate, discuss, get angry, take action or say what the fuck. That is my ideal world as a media freak and political junkie.

    The Blethen family for longer that anyone here has been alive — has considered Seattle its turf. The norm. But, interestingly, they are far less right than they were in earlier eras.

    And if Ryan Blethen is the next family key person, the trend looks like it will continue.

    I disagree totally with what the court did. I do not subscribe to constructionist doctrines for either he State Supremes or the other ones in DC. Fighting the man — as in, giant structures like Port, City Light, Metro, Seattle Housing, Sound Transit, DOT — with their money and attorneys – never a fair fight. Folks, it is a stacked deck all the way.

    In a close decision the court developed no better idea of real notice as an assist to the ordinary folks, squeezed in some fashion by the Titans. I think they missed a chance to mention the post, Fed Ex, email and posting on the doors — all avenues of notice in such cases as a thorny eminent domain proceedings. This poor decision has nothing to do with the Times and what they print.

    I am very disappointed they said when you are fighting City Hall or Sound Transit, Joe and Jane Doe-Miller, the consortia have the 50 pound hammer and that is OK, tough luck with modern and easily accessed notice in a dispute.

  57. 68

    Cougar spews:

    a little off topic but can we replace the cake with Coulter (or Puddy, or JCH, or…)?
    http://news.enquirer.com/apps/.....1056/rss02

    Looks like Rep Schmidt will be the first person in history to get their head cut off twice. Once yesterday at the ‘party’ and once more in either the primary or the November elections. Could not happen to a nicer ‘witch’.

  58. 69

    righton spews:

    Stunning that the Supreme court of WA would overturn what’s in the constitution; written and deemed law since creation of the state.

    Of course a clear analysis of this only at soundpolitics.com

    Why do lefties on the Sup court hate the status quo?

  59. 70

    Rev. A.A. Tappman: Anababtist spews:

    re 22: Why does CA R. Rep. Charles Pombo hate the 1973 Endangered Species Act and use deceptive statistics to back up his false allegations against it?

    You can only find the answer in SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS, which are the antithesis of how the non-reality based community ( Republicans ) views the world.

  60. 72

    Green Thumb spews:

    Goldy’s right on this one, and I think the sometimes testy responses illustrate how society is taking an increasingly “postmodern” view of government. An increasing number of voters don’t understand the nuances of our governmental structure, such as the role of the courts vis a vis the legislative and executive branches. Public sentiment can thus be much more easily manipulated in ways that would make our constitution framers turn over in their graves. This is why Goldy’s post is a useful public service even if one doesn’t agree with the statute it discusses.

  61. 73

    klake spews:

    Roger and Gang new type of court activist and could chage the EPA long reach of the law.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02.....ref=slogin

    Reach of Clean Water Act Is at Issue in 2 Supreme Court Cases
    By FELICITY BARRINGER
    WASHINGTON, Feb. 19 — More than half of the nation’s streams and wetlands could be removed from the protections of the federal Clean Water Act if two legal challenges started more than a decade ago by two Michigan developers are supported by a majority of the newly remade Supreme Court.

    One case involves a developer who wanted to sell a wetland for a shopping center and in preparation filled it with sand without applying for a permit, in defiance of the authorities. The second was brought by a would-be condominium developer who applied to the Army Corps of Engineers for a permit to fill a wetland and was denied.

    Oral arguments in the cases — the first before the newest justice, Samuel A. Alito Jr. — are scheduled for Tuesday morning. They will pit developers and a phalanx of their industrial, agricultural and ideological allies against both the solicitor general and a who’s who of environmental lawyers in an argument over the scope of one of the country’s fundamental environmental laws.

    The central question is where federal authority ends along the network of rivers, streams, canals and ditches. Does it reach all the veins and arterioles of the nation’s waters, and all the wetlands that drain into them? Does it end with the waterways that are actually navigable and the wetlands abutting them? Or is it some place in between?

    Also at issue are who draws those lines — and how — and who decides what the Clean Water Act means by “navigable waters” and “the waters of the United States.”

    Tucked into the larger question is the issue of how many of the nation’s 100 million or so acres of wetlands have a close enough connection, or nexus, to regulated waters to fit under the same regulatory umbrella.

    The twin cases, blending questions of hydrology and federalism, take aim at the constitutional and legal underpinnings of the federally run system that controls the health of the nation’s web of waterways. The developers argue that the federal custodians of the Clean Water Act have overreached by asserting jurisdiction over ditches and wetlands far from the large waterways over which Congress has clear authority.

    In addition, the cases bring a rich cast of characters to the court. It includes a cantankerous developer who has likened environmental regulators to Nazis, a legal foundation dedicated to reining in government and a diverse group of supporters on both sides, including the Western Coalition of Arid States, the Association of California Water Agencies, the American Petroleum Institute and the libertarian Cato Institute.

    M. Reed Hopper of the Pacific Legal Foundation, who represents one developer, John A. Rapanos, argues that the existing interpretation of the law infringes on the rights of states and individuals and impermissibly gives the federal government authority over “any area over which water flows, including a public street with an attached storm drain, a private lawn that drains to the street or, quite literally, the kitchen sink.”

    In response, the government, backed by major environmental groups, federal and state regulators and a bipartisan group of former administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency, says that the theories of Mr. Rapanos and his fellow developer, June Carabell, would remove more than half of existing waterways — perhaps as many as 99 percent, by one estimate — from federal water pollution controls.

  62. 74

    Rev. A.A. Tappman: Anababtist spews:

    Goldy: I guess our comments bend the straight poop a little. Sorry…

  63. 75

    Rev. A.A. Tappman: Anababtist spews:

    tap tap tap testing …. tap tap tap testing … tap tap this is a test… tap tap bvleeeeeep weeeeeeeeeeeeoooooooooooooweee!!!!!! ovuuuuuuuum kabuuuuuush bleeeeeeeeeep!!!!!!!!! tap tap testing!!

    I tried to post this on uSp, but it was too controversial.

  64. 76

    spews:

    Bob @13,

    Once again I have to ask… do people really read what I write?

    As a policy issue, I cannot argue with the Times’ conclusion. If it were my property being considered for condemnation, I would damn well expect to receive an official notice of the hearing.

    But… courts don’t decide policy issues, they decide legal issues… so rather than berating justices for ruling based on the statute, the Times should be urging the Legislature to change it.

    Now how the fuck does that get interpreted as me saying property should be condemned without individual notice?

    My beef is with the Times dissing the court for doing their job: interpreting law… even poorly written or misguided laws. The target of the Times’ ire should be the legislature, which clearly needs to fix the statute to better protect the rights of property owners.

    But to go after the court on this issue is either boneheaded or transparently partisan. This is a wonderful example of the Times going out of its way to insert politics into judicial races.

    As to complaining about bloggers like me going after editorial boards… WTF Bob? The Times has this huge bullhorn which Frank Blethen uses to pursue his personal political agenda. That’s his right. But it’s my right — and responsibility — to use my tiny little blog to counter them in anyway I can, when I believe they are using their power in a way detrimental to the public good.

    So re-read this post, and then re-read my tagline: “the straight poop on WA politics & the press.” Media criticism has always been one of my primary focuses… be it the Times or (u)SP or anybody else.

  65. 77

    BOB from BOEING spews:

    Can’t believe the Canucks are getting trashed in Olympia Hockey – and the ice dancers of both sexes are lush specimens,

  66. 78

    BOB from BOEING spews:

    Wonder what Sound T. paid? Parking lot — over 10,000.00 I bet. How silly, just a few millions I bet. I don’t know the Millers of Tacoma, but I sure agree one hundred per cent with the Times.

    A liberal blog that condemns the Times, the largest and most influential newspaper in the state for taking the side of Jane and John Doe-Miller, fighting the giant consortia, Sound Transit, who is taking his property using eminent domain for a parking lot. Whew….. Too much weed tonight out there, or beers. Or just plain no real politics as in protect us all against institutions with almost unlimited power……..as in almost unlimited $$$$$$$$$$ as well.

    There are dozens of places where constructive notice is cited in the law. Ask RR, he is an attorney. For example. you must be served for a lawsuit, lease must be filed for real enforcement, notices of mortgages, contracts, credit liens, all filed.

    Why does a bright person like Goldy think any property can be condemned without excellent notice in this day and age? Can’t get the wagon and horses up that trail? That excuse doesn’t wash. Or other such pr. blab blahs.

    INHO — Editorials are about totally, un bridled, mouthy, free press — value the day when they are 200 per cent on your issue. Other days call them names. For me, opining on court cases make a great deal of sense since in most cases those decisions really do affect many readers lives.

    And the wrong ones can make it easier to take your house and much more.

    And for Bloggers to be concerned about too much opinion, my we are getting foggy and fussy.

  67. 79

    BOB from BOEING spews:

    I will bow and take my hat off to any Solider, Sailor or Marine who died fighting the Nazi — Axis powers in the War to save democracy and civilization — World War II.

    This oh so hip and flip conversation would never take place in Europe. Only in America which was never bombed, and no millions of civiian deaths, untold destruction, slavery / death in camps and starvation.

    Any Russian or Brit would kiss Pappys grave marker. By the way he was Sioux Nation. Not a rich white guy…….God forgive those ignorant UW preppies whose future lives he died to protect.

    Pappy also could be with Cindy in the lane at Crawford, many vets of previous wars do not support the present mongers in power.

  68. 80

    Joshua H spews:

    Patrick E. Bell @ 4

    Qhy aren’t *you* addressing the hate mail and death threats sent to ASUW members?

  69. 81

    Bill Best spews:

    2

    I think you missd the point 180 degrees. The Times sided with the property owner, suggsting that maybe they could have mailed a notice, used Fed Ex, possible ring the door …… This is almost beyond belief, the only notice they gave the poor scmucks was a notice on Sound Transits’ own web site. How convient. for the mega agency.

  70. 84

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    4

    Guess you don’t want to talk about how things are going in the CURRENT WAR, huh.

  71. 85

    dj spews:

    Patrick E. Bell @ 4

    “Not following the idiots at UW who shot down Pappy? Why not?!?”

    Ummm…because he apparently does not feel like it. It’s Goldy’s blog and he can write about whatever the fuck he wants to write about. If you are interested in topics that Goldy doesn’t choose to write about, go read other blogs that cover that stuff!!! It really is very simple.

  72. 86

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    3

    If the Republicans repeal the ESA, maybe the next species to go extinct will be humans.

  73. 88

    Rev. A.A. Tappman: Anababtist spews:

    The Endangered Species Act is in the developer’s gunsights as well. Look for them to be peppering the media with scattershot numbers that distort the success of the 1973 ESA and make it seem ineffective.

    The main thing to keep in mind is that it takes a minimum of 50 years for a species to fully recover. Most species have only been protected for 15.5 years. So , the claim that the ESA doesn’t work is a deception. You can always take that to the bank when Republicans are involved — because they live in a bubble that has no relation to objective reality.

  74. 89

    spews:

    Blethen wouldn’t mind anything Sound Transit does. Frank would love it if they tunneled through the estate tax! So much for a %50.1 owned “family newspaper.”

  75. 90

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    The Sound Transit route is flawed. All that tunneling could be avoided if we run it smack through the Fairview Fanny building. That’ll settle Frank’s hash!