Search the Lounge


« July 9, 1868 | Main | A Window into Brett Kavanaugh’s Judicial Philosophy »

July 10, 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


"Given Bundy’s acquittal and recent state level policies, however, this will probably play well with his base in the West."

Please recall that coastal California, Oregon and Washington are in the West too. So it might play to his conservative or libertarian Western base, or to the sagebrush rebellion crowd, but it paints too broad a brush to say that supporting the lawless actions of these convicted felons will play widely throughout the Western U.S.

Scott Pruitt Edndowed Chair in Enviconmental Justice

Manifest Destiny.


it is as perplexing as Obama's commutation of Chelsea Manning's prison sentence

i just don't understand it

Anonymous 2

I'm not sure that it will play well with the west outside of the coastal states. Although Congressman Chaffetz introduced a bill to move federal land to state control, he withdrew that proposal in 2017 because of opposition from those who enjoy outdoor sports, including fisherman, hikers, and hunters. Most

Anonymous 2

Sorry--posted prematurely. To continue--most people in the Mountain West realize that state governments can't be trusted to maintain public access to wild land. The push is from mining interests, not people.


I agree that western support for the land transfer movement is far from uniform. However, judging from the actions of Republican state legislators, the 2016 Republican Platform, etc., I think Republican voters in the West tend to support the movement. Yes, many conservative hunters and fisherman oppose it, but, overall, conservatives want less federal control. I have much more detailed discussion in the paper that is referenced in the post.


Jan. 5, 2016, NYT

"The United States government owns 47 percent of all land in the West. In some states, including Oregon, Utah and Nevada, the majority of land is owned by the federal government. Of course, it used to own nearly all of it."

Of course, for a "progressive" that result should be the inverse: government ownership should increase, not decrease, until all the land, and the commanding heights of the economy, and ... and what you think and what you say (and who is allowed to speak), and what you do and so forth ...

Freedom will only be possible when there is total control.

Just stop it

Of course, anon. Progressives support Stalinist planned economies. Thanks for enlightening us...again.


That's actually close to accurate, Just Stop It.

Study, for example, the Wilson administration: its attitudes toward the separation of powers, free speech, etc. Look today at the attitudes of those whose attitudes I believe you epitomize toward free speech!

If you don't know, you need to enlighten yourself!

Just stop it

Yes, clearly the Wilson administration represents the cutting edge of progressive politics in the 2010's. How could I have forgotten?


I don't know, how? Did you ever know? Can't tell.

Do you not recognize trends and themes?

Or, do you already know it all and possess infallible judgment (without knowledge), and therefore have no need to consider any other points of view?


BTW, the "progressives" of today are openly advocating "Democratic Socialism," so, there's that. "Planned economy"? Substantial control of the "commanding heights of the economy"? Suppression of speech? Just take a look around.

We haven't even touched on whether these trends are good or bad.

The author above seems to think that transfer of control of federal lands to the states would be less consistent with the Constitution than permanent ownership by the federal government. That issue involves important legal questions.

Politically, though, my view is that knee jerk support for federal ownership, just based on hate of republicans, is sort, well, ignorant and a biased, unintellectual stance based on prejudice. (The author may have a good legal argument, but, he went there with his snarky comments about politics and the clear anti republican bias.)

Scott Pruitt Edndowed Chair in Enviconmental Justice

I did learn something in my law school property class. Nobody really owns the land, but owns the right exclude others. The feds really haven't excluded anybody have they? So, that bundle of sticks is intact. What's the problem with these cowboys and their pistolas?

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad