A RARE VICTORY FOR NATL GAS PIPELINES - Did you know the fed govt can make it legal for a private business to take state property?

[bendog]

Divided court says New Jersey can’t stop natural-gas pipeline - SCOTUSblog

A pipeline developer may use the federal government’s power of eminent domain to seize property controlled by New Jersey so that it can build a natural-gas pipeline through the state, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a 5-4 vote. The case, PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, involved a planned

www.scotusblog.com

Supreme Court won't sidetrack plans for natural gas pipeline

The Supreme Court dealt a blow to New Jersey and other states seeking a way to oppose pipelines running through their land, siding with a pipeline company Tuesday in a dispute over New Jersey land needed for a natural gas pipeline. Both liberal and conservative justices joined to rule 5-4 for...

news.yahoo.com

And private property too
Under 15 U. S. C. §717f(h): “When any holder of a certificate of public convenience and necessity cannot acquire by contract, or is unable to agree with the owner of property to the compensation to be paid for, the necessary right-of-way to construct, operate, and maintain a pipe line or pipe lines for the transportation of natural gas . . . , it may acquire the same by the exercise of the right of eminent domain in the district court of the United States for the district in which such property may be located, or in the State courts.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1039_8n5a.pdf

 

[Moonglow]

An individual is not in total control of that so called private property they purchased. You are merely renting it until yous die.

 

[postman]

Divided court says New Jersey can’t stop natural-gas pipeline - SCOTUSblog

A pipeline developer may use the federal government’s power of eminent domain to seize property controlled by New Jersey so that it can build a natural-gas pipeline through the state, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a 5-4 vote. The case, PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, involved a planned

www.scotusblog.com

Supreme Court won't sidetrack plans for natural gas pipeline

The Supreme Court dealt a blow to New Jersey and other states seeking a way to oppose pipelines running through their land, siding with a pipeline company Tuesday in a dispute over New Jersey land needed for a natural gas pipeline. Both liberal and conservative justices joined to rule 5-4 for...

news.yahoo.com

And private property too
Under 15 U. S. C. §717f(h): “When any holder of a certificate of public convenience and necessity cannot acquire by contract, or is unable to agree with the owner of property to the compensation to be paid for, the necessary right-of-way to construct, operate, and maintain a pipe line or pipe lines for the transportation of natural gas . . . , it may acquire the same by the exercise of the right of eminent domain in the district court of the United States for the district in which such property may be located, or in the State courts.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1039_8n5a.pdf

I haven't read the ruling but it sounds like they're just upholding the law. Even if it was a badly justified law. Congress basically ceded their power of eminent domain under the Natural Gas Act.

 

[Moonglow]

Divided court says New Jersey can’t stop natural-gas pipeline - SCOTUSblog

A pipeline developer may use the federal government’s power of eminent domain to seize property controlled by New Jersey so that it can build a natural-gas pipeline through the state, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a 5-4 vote. The case, PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, involved a planned

www.scotusblog.com

Supreme Court won't sidetrack plans for natural gas pipeline

The Supreme Court dealt a blow to New Jersey and other states seeking a way to oppose pipelines running through their land, siding with a pipeline company Tuesday in a dispute over New Jersey land needed for a natural gas pipeline. Both liberal and conservative justices joined to rule 5-4 for...

news.yahoo.com

And private property too
Under 15 U. S. C. §717f(h): “When any holder of a certificate of public convenience and necessity cannot acquire by contract, or is unable to agree with the owner of property to the compensation to be paid for, the necessary right-of-way to construct, operate, and maintain a pipe line or pipe lines for the transportation of natural gas . . . , it may acquire the same by the exercise of the right of eminent domain in the district court of the United States for the district in which such property may be located, or in the State courts.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1039_8n5a.pdf

I haven't read the ruling but it sounds like they're just upholding the law. Even if it was a badly justified law. Congress basically ceded their power of eminent domain under the Natural Gas Act.

All hail the petroleum overlords.

 

[bendog]

An individual is not in total control of that so called private property they purchased. You are merely renting it until yous die.

Apparently so. But in Mississippi - back before our state supreme court took away voter initiative power to enact laws purely through popular vote - we passed a law making it illegal for the STATE to take private property and then deed it over to another private property. The state took some land from a poor black farmer and gave it to Nissan to build an autoplant. And the black farmer didn't want to sell even for a pretty penny, because he wanted to leave the land to his kids because it was the only way to preserve their way of life.

It seemed unfair to most of us.

I just wonder if the federal govt can do what we said the State could not. I'd never considered that question before. It just seemed interesting.

 

[bendog]

Divided court says New Jersey can’t stop natural-gas pipeline - SCOTUSblog

A pipeline developer may use the federal government’s power of eminent domain to seize property controlled by New Jersey so that it can build a natural-gas pipeline through the state, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a 5-4 vote. The case, PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, involved a planned

www.scotusblog.com

Supreme Court won't sidetrack plans for natural gas pipeline

The Supreme Court dealt a blow to New Jersey and other states seeking a way to oppose pipelines running through their land, siding with a pipeline company Tuesday in a dispute over New Jersey land needed for a natural gas pipeline. Both liberal and conservative justices joined to rule 5-4 for...

news.yahoo.com

And private property too
Under 15 U. S. C. §717f(h): “When any holder of a certificate of public convenience and necessity cannot acquire by contract, or is unable to agree with the owner of property to the compensation to be paid for, the necessary right-of-way to construct, operate, and maintain a pipe line or pipe lines for the transportation of natural gas . . . , it may acquire the same by the exercise of the right of eminent domain in the district court of the United States for the district in which such property may be located, or in the State courts.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1039_8n5a.pdf

I haven't read the ruling but it sounds like they're just upholding the law. Even if it was a badly justified law. Congress basically ceded their power of eminent domain under the Natural Gas Act.

That's true, imo. But legal don't make sumpin rat. LOL

 

[Oddball]

An individual is not in total control of that so called private property they purchased. You are merely renting it until yous die.

Apparently so. But in Mississippi - back before our state supreme court took away voter initiative power to enact laws purely through popular vote - we passed a law making it illegal for the STATE to take private property and then deed it over to another private property. The state took some land from a poor black farmer and gave it to Nissan to build an autoplant. And the black farmer didn't want to sell even for a pretty penny, because he wanted to leave the land to his kids because it was the only way to preserve their way of life.

It seemed unfair to most of us.

I just wonder if the federal govt can do what we said the State could not. I'd never considered that question before. It just seemed interesting.

You're about 20 years behind the curve.

Kelo Eminent Domain - Institute for Justice

One of the Supreme Court’s most controversial cases made it much easier for the government to seize homes and small businesses.

ij.org

 

[beautress]

An individual is not in total control of that so called private property they purchased. You are merely renting it until yous die.

Eminent domain is often abused. My first business was forced to find a different so the city could put a 4-lane road to relieve other east-west routes that were clogged up at 7 am, 12 and 5 pm. We were given half price for the lot and rental unit we had to give up. And I had to pay rent My business couldn't afford for years. A few years down the line, a federal irs representative chewed me out for not making a profit. Who do the feds think they are. I spent all those years making children's quilts for handicapped kids, fatherless, wounded warriors in my state, hospice residents, fire victims who had nothing warm, fundraisers for the symphony, a beleaguered art gallery, and the homeless shelter. I never took time for self pity that the business at its best broke even without ever putting bread on the table. Fortunately, my son won a fully paid scholarship to the state university for his hard work in junior and high school with a lot of benevolence to helping out other students who were lagging behind. He also pitched in to help out at the shop. OK, Ok, ya had to wear combat boots if you ever dared enter his bedroom. < giggle> And when he tested out of several classes his freshmen year of college, he used his spare bonus time to tutor computer basics to his fellow students so they could pass their advanced classes. And when he came home, he acted like I was doing him a favor to let him work on several Saturdays because he loved being in the shop and helping people. What a great son.

I was lucky.

 

[mdk]

ou're about 20 years behind the curve.

Kelo Eminent Domain - Institute for Justice

One of the Supreme Court’s most controversial cases made it much easier for the government to seize homes and small businesses.

ij.org

I still seethe over the sheer stupidity of this ruling. Absolutely crackers!