Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
1) Soveriegn immunity/Fed. Tort Claims limit
2) Practical limits . . .
If your proposition is correct, any time any person suffered a loss of property that could have been prevented through more/greater/better government action, they would have a taking claim.
Your proposition is doubly dubious given that the levees were not designed to withstand a storm of this strength. So you don't have what in the tort world might be a product liability claim that the levees didn't do as promised. They did, but they never promised to stop everything.
So, I don't know if it counts as showing you that you are wrong, but many articles, including some I'm sure in the Economist, will explain that (construction defects aside) the levees were not designed to stop Katrina. And they didn't.
|
OK legally I may have my head up my derrier. But morally, don't you think the Feds should cover this (in other words the American tax payer should cover this). The Feds should have forseen this type of storm coming and strengthened the levee. I just think if people houses got flooded because of a weak levee they should get compensated.
Did I turn into a bleeding heart liberal and not realize it?
Just my opinion.
