FL Supreme Court Rules Against HSR Proponents

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Law Related
Posted on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 09:59:47 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Here's the ruling (PDF):

Based on the limited record before the Court and a review of the federal and state law relied on by the parties, the Court has determined that the petitioners have not clearly demonstrated entitlement to quo warranto, mandamus, or any other relief. Accordingly, the emergency petition is hereby denied.

The reasoning is not explained, but my view is that the Petitioners' failure to explain and argue what Scott needed to do NOW (i.e. - the ministerial act of signing the agreement with the federal DOT as required by Florida law), as opposed to what he might need to do later, was fatal to their Petition. Perhaps a better argument would have yielded the same result, but now we will never know.

Speaking for me only

< A Time To Kill . . . The "Recovery" | Feds Charge Jared Loughner With Murder of Federal Judge and Child Victim >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

FL Supreme Court Rules Against HSR Proponents | 40 comments (40 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Fine by Me (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:12:38 AM EST

Just more for the rest of us. If Florida wants to elect a teapartier, they are going to have to reap the 'rewards' that come with that decision.

I wonder how many teaparty supporters are feeling hung-over, including my homeland, Wisconsin.

The problem with that is (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:14:06 AM EST

the Florida project was actually the most shovel ready of all the rail projects.

Moving out of Florida hurts the economy of Florida, but also the economy of the country.

This is bad news all around I think.


How So ? (none / 0) (#5)
by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:30:28 AM EST

I assume shovel ready means the money would have went towards construction. Now it goes into R&D, planning, and acquisition, the funds aren't going to sit idle. They will get fed back into the economy no matter who accepts what. It's not like the other states aren't trying to feed money into their economies, they will spend probably as quickly as the checks are cut.

If the governor kept fighting it, it may have frozen some of the funds which on the National level would be the worse possible outcome.


Well, the faster the money gets out (none / 0) (#6)
by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:42:28 AM EST

in whichever state, the better for all of us around the country. So, if they're ready to go in Florida, I think BTD has a point.


I think the point is that (none / 0) (#9)
by ruffian on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:54:37 AM EST

the engineers, planners, etc, have not been hit as hard by the recession as the laborers have. Statistically there are fewer unemployed engineers than there are construction workers.


Something Like That (none / 0) (#23)
by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 04:18:13 PM EST

Regardless of who gets the funds, they are going to be injected into the economy as fast as possible, the actual receiver is irrelevant from an economics point of view.

What matters is how fast the money goes from Fed to pocket. Hiring 50 construction workers in Florida is no different than hiring 10 engineers in Georgia, the majority of the cash will be recycled into the economy either way.


: I'd like to thank the Gov (none / 0) (#37)
by nycstray on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 08:34:27 PM EST

looks like some (most?) of the funds are coming to Ca. :)

Penny wise and pound foolish (5.00 / 0) (#10)
by mmc9431 on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 11:02:19 AM EST

Elections certainly do have consequences. Maybe if people are made to realize what these governors are really doing to their states, the tea party movement will fade into the sunset.

I really believe Scott (and the other Scott in Wisconsin) are all about grabbing headlines for a possible 2012 cabinet appointment. They certainly can't have the best interest of the state in mind.

Since the voters don't want HSR (1.00 / 1) (#11)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 11:56:56 AM EST

why shouldn't the money just go back to the treasury.

How long do you folks think we can have trillion dollar deficits??

You're not "the voters" (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Yman on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 12:22:27 PM EST

In reality, of course, 64 percent support using state funds for HSR and 62% support using federal funds. In Florida, those numbers are even higher, at 67 and 66%.

Only 21/23% oppose it.


There's alternatives (none / 0) (#13)
by mmc9431 on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 12:32:19 PM EST

Cutting the corporate welfare in the country could go a long way to whittling that deficit down.

Maybe a closer look at the military budget might not be a bad idea. After all. a trillion doesn't seem to upset Washington when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan.


What? (1.00 / 0) (#14)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 12:45:14 PM EST

High speed rail is corporate welfare pure and simple. Pulling the plug on thus massive destruction of wealth can't happen too soon.


We agree (1.00 / 1) (#22)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 03:57:08 PM EST

Wasting time, talent, and material like that is certainly is stupid.


"Corporate welfare"? (none / 0) (#24)
by Yman on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 04:20:23 PM EST

You mean, like the interstate highway system is "corporate welfare"?


Yes, the Interstate highway system (none / 0) (#29)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 05:47:36 PM EST

was a huge corporate "welfare."

I mean we didn't need a highway system to provide rapid transportation for national defense.

And our manufacturing base was in serious decline.

Unemployment was in the 15% range.

And our deficit was a trillion plus dollars and we owed trillions to China.


Precisely my point, Jimmy (none / 0) (#31)
by Yman on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 06:02:47 PM EST

If the interstate highway system isn't "corporate welfare", neither is HSR.

Thanks.

BTW - The other factors are irrelevant to the issue of whether HSR is "corporate welfare".


Yman I have (1.50 / 2) (#40)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:08:51 PM EST

previously asked you to use my moniker and not call me "Jimmy."

I ask again.


Good luck ... (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by Yman on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 11:19:56 PM EST

... with that.


: Yman, stop calling him (none / 0) (#47)
by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 09:34:18 PM EST

by a name he doesn't use here or your comments will be deleted.

You haven't the vaguest idea (none / 0) (#32)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 06:05:39 PM EST

as to why the Interstate system was built.

And sarcasm doesn't work, I see.


Course I do, Jimmy (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by Yman on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 07:58:57 PM EST

Eisenhower was motivated by national defense and his experience with the German autobahn system, but planning for the national highway system predated Ike and WWII. It was also designed to ease transportation for the growing fleet of private automobiles, to serve as an evacuation route during natural disasters and to promote interstate commerce. IOW, corporate welfare.

BTW - I know you were trying to be sarcastic Jimmy. The problem is that, in doing so, you proved my point. HSR is no more corporate welfare than the interstate highway system. In fact, given that HSR is designed to transport people (primarily) as opposed to cargo and products for commerce, it could easily be argued that HSR is not a form of corporate welfare while the interstate highway system is precisely that.

Sarcasm works, Jimmy ... you just have to follow your conclusions to their logical end.

Ohhhhhhhhh, ...

... that's where you keep going off the tracks.


: BTW - Even Eisenhower focused on ... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by Yman on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 08:16:59 PM EST

... the interstate highway system to address the growing number of private automobiles and to facilitate growth in commerce and the economy as a whole. Try reading his speech in Cadillac Square.
"No charge for the education".

To be fair (none / 0) (#15)
by jbindc on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 12:45:45 PM EST

In the current proposed budget, the administration is seeking to cut $78 billion over 5 years from the Defense Department.


$78 Billion over five years (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by KeysDan on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 02:00:29 PM EST

or about $15 Billion a year--approximately one month's expenses for just Afghanistan and Iraq's military adventures.


: In addition (5.00 / 0) (#21)
by mmc9431 on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 02:11:12 PM EST

Add on the billions we send over to the surrounding countries disguised as foreign aid. In reality, it's more of a bribe to allow us to set up military bases.

Time will tell (none / 0) (#18)
by mmc9431 on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 01:48:53 PM EST

I can't believe the Republicans will go for that. There's way too much money made in privitizing and contracting.


: They're split (none / 0) (#20)
by jbindc on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 02:05:17 PM EST

on defense cuts -and it's coming mostly from the Tea Party who want the cuts.
Interesting clip here, as this is from a Republican-leaning paper here in DC:

Why do most Republican congressmen refuse to cut defense spending? Do they really believe that in this part of government, unlike every other part, more money means greater effectiveness? Or is it the influence of the military-industrial complex, which the GOP has always treated well even though military contractors donate more money to Democrats?
Maybe the party feels political pressure from its base to keep defense spending high. For instance, Hartzler won in an upset last fall thanks to the backing of Sarah Palin, who has said defense cuts should be off the table.
But conservatives should understand that equating the DOD's budget with national security is a fallacy. Libertarian-leaning Rep. Ron Paul, a hero in large corners of the GOP base, put it well at last week's Conservative Political Action Committee: "Military spending and defense spending are not the same thing." Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., proposed three amendments Tuesday to cut military spending that he said had no relation to defense.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., whose conservative credentials are not in question, is on board with Paul and Flake in trying to trim military fat. He's advocated ending the National Guard's involvement in local anti-drug enforcement and getting the Army out of breast-cancer research (there's nothing military-specific about this research).
Billions could be cut just by following the advice of Gates, including mothballing three of our 11 aircraft carriers.
Every wasteful defense project, however, supports hundreds of jobs (and at least a handful of well-connected defense contractors). Republicans have made "jobs" the talking point of the moment, and putting shipyard workers in Newport News, Va., out of work would probably qualify, in the parlance of today, as a "job-killing proposal."
The spectacle of Republicans -- so many of whom tout defense above all -- using our military as a public-works jobs program is disheartening.

Pleaze, What is That, a Loaded Fighter/Year (none / 0) (#25)
by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 04:40:54 PM EST

Plus the military will just take if off human cost by not increasing pay or cutting personal and letting the others pick up the slack.

According the pie chart in my 1040 instruction manual, National Defense, Veterans, and Foreign affairs chews up 22% of the budget in 2009. Actual numbers, not budget hokus pokus BS.

In 2009 we took in approximately 2.1 trillion dollars, which means $545 Billion went to the above. I don't think cutting 15.6 Billion/yr is much of a cut (2%-3%).

We spend more on the military then every other country combined, that is a serious problem and until someone want to address this, the rest of fluff to appease.

It's pure non-sense, like me cutting out golf trying to balance my budget right after wife gets an M6. Why should I cut the small niceties while she's buying a $100k car. What do they call it, shared sacrifice ? Show me and you can have the light rail, until then, suck it (not you personally).


Unanimous (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:01:12 AM EST

Oh well.

: LaHood (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:12:37 AM EST

can move the "deadline" and basically cut Scott out really, but he seem disinclined to do so.

Petition for rehrg. barred. (We don't (none / 0) (#7)
by oculus on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:43:29 AM EST

want to sit through yet another oral argument.)

Apparently (none / 0) (#8)
by lilburro on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:52:20 AM EST

the lawsuit wasn't frivolous at all.

How frustrating.

How about provinding some foundation or facts (none / 0) (#27)
by Wile ECoyote on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 05:30:44 PM EST

What are the facts? How much? How much for the Eminent domain lawsuits? Modern freight rails top out at 97 MPH. How much to build the new high speed rails? How much do the states put up? If the feds pay for it all, do they fund it forever? How many times does it stop? If it does not make money, then what? If it goes through my community and it does not stop, what compensation for that community? Once a congressman sees a film of a high speed train derailing or a test train being blown up with an IED, there will be fences the entire length of the rails. How do wildlife cross the tracks? Money for security for the searches of passengers after a congressman sees a test train blowing up or facts at high speed. I lived in Europe. High speed rail is nice, but as I recall it does not pay for itself. If highspeed rail is a homerun, how come evil, souless corporations are not lined up to build and run it. The only company I see is seimans, who wants to sell the gov't on their engines.
Even you have to admit this entire thread has been re-markedly fact free. BTD's entire shtick has been "free money" for all and no hangover. The only thing you have added to this conversation is letting people know you don't like anyone who disagrees with you.
Throw some of that reality based world you talk about. Throw some facts. Please.

You should recognize this.

: Would you please (1.00 / 1) (#28)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 05:43:17 PM EST

quit asking hard questions.

Midway's location (none / 0) (#38)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 10:04:24 PM EST

meant that it could not be expanded to handle the future requirements, be they 747 or 474. That was understood.

And that's the point. Ohare was built for future demands, not as a public works boondoggle.

You know, you have turned into just as much a stalker as Dark Avenger. You cannot resist commenting on anything I post.

It is unhealthy and concerns me.

bottom line (none / 0) (#44)
by CST on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 09:40:04 AM EST

Whether the interstate highway system was built for defense or cars is irrelevant. It's used by cars, not for defense. Roads are falling apart and they are insufficient. New roads get built every day with minimal complaint. It's generally paid for by the government with no complaints. Corporate welfare? In the event that a developer is responsible for paying for a new road, that only happens if a planning board or some other public agency makes them do it for project approval.

That can be done with trains as well to some degree. Although not so much with track, which is a regional development. But the types of big private development where this happens is completely dead right now. Roads are still being built by the government though. And I guarantee those roads will not make any profit. But we do it anyway because we need to invest in our future. Just like with trains.

Thread cleaned of insults (none / 0) (#48)
by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 09:37:59 PM EST

You may not call other commenters names, or make up names for them, or call their postings stupid. Insults are not allowed here. Disagree politely.

Harry, Yman, Donald of Hawaii, you are all offenders in this thread. Stop it.

I did no such thing (none / 0) (#49)
by Harry Saxon on Sat Mar 05, 2011 at 09:58:21 PM EST

you baited and insulted (none / 0) (#50)
by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 01:39:06 AM EST

Jim. You didn't start it but you joined in.


: You let Poker Playing James get away with a lot (none / 0) (#51)
by Harry Saxon on Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 06:40:55 AM EST

of insults as to peoples' political beliefs and other b*llsh*t, and then when people go too far in their reaction to such flummery will you then respond as in this present case.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.