SCOTUS Rejects UTAH land grab suit.

[44hunter45]

Supreme Court Rejects Utah’s Land Grab Lawsuit: A Victory for Public Land Owners

“Today’s rejection of the State of Utah’s attempted land grab lawsuit reaffirms what we’ve long known: These lands belong to all Americans and were never Utah’s to take."

www.backcountryhunters.org

 

[GigiBobert]

Pound sand Utah!

 

[Potsie]

Well that's some good news.

 

[mukbowhunt]

Yay! But I suspect this was step 1.

 

[FairWeather]

The safeguards are holding, for the moment at least.

Coincidentally, just this morning I was reading an article on how bringing legal challenges, even when they fail, often still advance their cause and drum up more support and $$$ by lending credibility to the movement. I’m sure this won’t be the last of it.

 

[Big Fin]

The safeguards are holding, for the moment at least.

Coincidentally, just this morning I was reading an article on how bringing legal challenges, even when they fail, often still advance their cause and drum up more support and $$$ by lending credibility to the movement. I’m sure this won’t be the last of it.

^^^This.

Utah's legislature appropriated $14 million of taxpayer money for this market scheme. This was the first step in what is a coordinated effort.

If you doubt that, go look at some of the public pages for folks in Congress who are asking questions like, "Do you think we should sell public land to lower housing costs?" Or, "Do you think we should sell some public land to lower the US Debt?"

The narrative that these lands are expendable, lonely, unused, and worthless is creeping in to a lot of other agendas.

I am sure they will now go to the lower courts, lose there, then go to the Appeals Court, lose there, then ask the USSC to once again consider their case.

All the while, they will be soaking sympathies from uninformed Congressional members to start selling land to lower housing costs in Utah. And then selling land to lower housing costs in other places, all without any negotiated sideboards as are in place for the Southern Nevada sales.

Once that marketing scheme start to lose its appeal, we'll be told that these lands are excess baggage and should be sold to lower the US debt, with none of the proceeds to be earmarked for such.

This is an ideological debate that has been going on since Jefferson fleeced Napoleon for the Louisiana Purchase. Folks have been wringing their hands to take ownership of these lands. It's not going to stop due to a predictable refute from the USSC.

 

[whatnot]

Mike Shultz, house speaker in Utah, is already planning on pushing this in lower courts.

Hes gonna fet some cheap land for hus development company come hell or high water

 

[Joseph Peterson]

^^^This.

Utah's legislature appropriated $14 million of taxpayer money for this market scheme. This was the first step in what is a coordinated effort.

If you doubt that, go look at some of the public pages for folks in Congress who are asking questions like, "Do you think we should sell public land to lower housing costs?" Or, "Do you think we should sell some public land to lower the US Debt?"

The narrative that these lands are expendable, lonely, unused, and worthless is creeping in to a lot of other agendas.

I am sure they will now go to the lower courts, lose there, then go to the Appeals Court, lose there, then ask the USSC to once again consider their case.

All the while, they will be soaking sympathies from uninformed Congressional members to start selling land to lower housing costs in Utah. And then selling land to lower housing costs in other places, all without any negotiated sideboards as are in place for the Southern Nevada sales.

Once that marketing scheme start to lose its appeal, we'll be told that these lands are excess baggage and should be sold to lower the US debt, with none of the proceeds to be earmarked for such.

This is an ideological debate that has been going on since Jefferson fleeced Napoleon for the Louisiana Purchase. Folks have been wringing their hands to take ownership of these lands. It's not going to stop due to a predictable refute from the USSC.

If there were some restrictions and not a free for all, there are indeed a great number of small land locked parcels that could be sold. One trouble is they have no value to anyone but the landowner who surrounds them. I am talking about 20-40 acre parcels that are inholdings. Bordering my farm there were a couple pieces that were given to the NezPerce Tribe as part of the Snake River Basin Adjudication settlement. There were 11,000 acres of small chunks given to them. As far as reducing the national debt though, more income is not the answer, less spending is and they are not capable of that without a red hot poker used. Like so many things, the sound bite is more important than the substance.

 

[4ohSick]

If you doubt that, go look at some of the public pages for folks in Congress who are asking questions like, "Do you think we should sell public land to lower housing costs?" Or, "Do you think we should sell some public land to lower the US Debt?"

I hope I'm wrong, but I'm just waiting for Montana's newest Senator to go back to his ideological roots and start asking these questions.