Dept. of Novel Legal Arguments

Clear Channel argues that its Ford Amphitheatre in Tampa is an extension of the state, that the concerts there "constitute essential governmental purposes," and that the enterprise should enjoy sovereign immunity from the local noise ordinance and property taxes.

Update: The judge isn't buying it.

Comments

[Hakluyt]

Well, even if such were the case all Florida has to do is waive SI in the case of noise infractions, etc. regarding this particular venue.

[jc]

Sounds like one government agency (EPC) trying to sue another (FSFA) and since they can't because of FSFA's immunity, they're trying to sue their sub-contractor instead. I hope Clear Channel wins.

[J]

A brief article linked from that one says a judge ruled against Clear Channel and its request for immunity from noise regulations. It promises more details today.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/25/Tampabay/Judge_rules_against_C.shtml

[Hakluyt]

J,

Such a ruling wouldn't be surprising. If Clear Channel wanted a waiver from the noise ordinances it should have contracted for such a waiver.

[Pro Libertate]

The whole thing was silly from the beginning. The open bandshell is right next to I-4 (I mean like a couple of hundred feet away, if that), ensuring lots of yummy fumes with your music. As for the noise, well, the people complaining were there first, and I'm pretty sure they were told that it wouldn't be a problem. The stadium is also "public" in that we pay for it, but the Glazers make all the money from it. Wonder if they'll be claiming immunity, too?

Isn't this government-corporation merger some sort of science fiction novel?

[mediageek]

So, if they don't have to pay property taxes, what's to keep the state from using ED in light of the Kelo decision to just shut them down and install some other private entity that's more willing to pay Ceasar?

[Hakluyt]

The judge also pointedly urged both sides to stop wasting court time and taxpayer money and come to a settlement.

Damn straight.

[Stevo Darkly]

I don't get it. If Clear Channel argues that the amphitheater is a state facility, rather than a private one, shouldn't all its proceeds flow into state coffers, instead of private ones?

I mean, if you're going to make that argument ...

[joe]

That has to be the flimsiest legal argument I've ever seen. I can't believe Clear Channel actually agreed to go to court with that argument.

[Portlander]

"That has to be the flimsiest legal argument I've ever seen. I can't believe Clear Channel actually agreed to go to court with that argument."

They went with that arguement because nothing else had a shot, and you never know when you'll find 20-odd judges (counting the various appeals courts, up to state or federal Supremes) who'll buy your flimsy arguement. Flimsy arguments worked with Kelo and Raich, after all.

[joe]

Portlander, you seem to have "flimsy" confused with "I don't like it."

Both the Kelo decision and the Rauch decision have decades of precedent to back them up. The silly contention that signing a contract with the government gives you sovereign immunity is a traveshamockery.

[Fabius Maximus]

"Both the [Dred Scott] decision and the [Plessy] decision had decades of precedent to back them up."

You seem to have precedent confused with "I like it."

Not accusing you of supporting the cited decisions, just reminding you that precedent is not the be all and end all. If it were, we'd still be up in the trees.

"In Okk v. Gokk, the Supreme Court of Monkeys decided that the law forbidding the making of one's home on the land was constitutional based on precedent. Okk had contended that he wished to make his home in a cave and use fire to improve the material conditions of his life. Gokk claimed that the use of fire would endanger his tree, that walking on two legs was a violation of OSHA regulations for the prevention of simian spine deformities, and that life on the ground, if widely practice, would destroy his branch rental business. The Court based it's ruling on the precedents of Lakk v. Monkey Leaf Commission and Tokk v. Baobab Fire Department and on the Arboreal Constitution's Commerce Clause."

[Fabius Maximus]

"Both the [Dred Scott] decision and the [Plessy] decision had decades of precedent to back them up."

You seem to have precedent confused with "I like it."

Not accusing you of supporting the cited decisions, just reminding you that precedent is not the be all and end all. If it were, we'd still be up in the trees.

"In Okk v. Gokk, the Supreme Court of Monkeys decided that the law forbidding the making of one's home on the land was constitutional based on precedent. Okk had contended that he wished to make his home in a cave and use fire to improve the material conditions of his life. Gokk claimed that the use of fire would endanger his tree, that walking on two legs was a violation of OSHA regulations for the prevention of simian spine deformities, and that life on the ground, if widely practice, would destroy his branch rental business. The Court based it's ruling on the precedents of Lakk v. Monkey Leaf Commission and Tokk v. Baobab Fire Department and on the Arboreal Constitution's Commerce Clause."

[Not a lawyer or, apparently a]

"Both the [Dred Scott] decision and the [Plessy] decision had decades of precedent to back them up."

You seem to have precedent confused with "I like it."

Not accusing you of supporting the cited decisions, just reminding you that precedent is not the be all and end all. If it were, we'd still be up in the trees.

"In Okk v. Gokk, the Supreme Court of Monkeys decided that the law forbidding the making of one's home on the land was constitutional based on precedent. Okk had contended that he wished to make his home in a cave and use fire to improve the material conditions of his life. Gokk claimed that the use of fire would endanger his tree, that walking on two legs was a violation of OSHA regulations for the prevention of simian spine deformities, and that life on the ground, if widely practice, would destroy his branch rental business. The Court based it's ruling on the precedents of Lakk v. Monkey Leaf Commission and Tokk v. Baobab Fire Department and on the Arboreal Constitution's Commerce Clause."

[Portlander]

Joe, "decades of precedent" is part of the flimsiness. Our legal system has a major flaw in its slavish devotion to precedent. If a case is wrongly decided once, that bad decision haunts us for decades.

Many on the liberal side of the fence are currently wearing the mantle of Champion of Precedent. But 70 years ago, they were the arch-enemies of precedent, because they didn't care for the existing precedents. The goombahs on the conservative side of the fence were then the defenders of precedent and are now the opponents. But once that solidly conservative majority is in place, and the rulings come out to their liking, the sides will change their stance on precedent one more time. Champions of precedent are like champions of federalism: only when it is convenient.

I'm not enough of a law student to know how a system that relies much less on precedent would work. I DO know that the current heavy reliance on precedent is based on the flawed premise that the Supreme Court gets it right, every time. That just ain't so.