You might like a lot of stuff by The Sword.

Example

There are vocals but they are smooth and crisp rather than the xtreme death metal habit of trying to eat the mic.

why aren’t we able to just make it more to our liking?

You are, but you have to figure out how to get it all to work together yourself. That means physically, electrically, and in software. All the things you listed are problems that need to be overcome. If you have the ability, you can do this, but you yourself have to do it or find someone who specializes in such particular work. Most people have neither the skills, time, or patience to do this.

It is called the Takings Clause by the Supreme Court, Cornell Law, and pretty much anyone else who talks about it. Expect the word “take” in a discussion about it.

The clause itself uses the word “take”. Taking with compensation is still taking.

It is called the Takings Clause by

They talked about just compensation, but the change and precedent provided by the Kelo case was in the lowering of the standard for taking. The case also set the precedent that the government could take private land not just for public use, but to transfer that land to another private party. Thus the focus on that. Compensation or not, the land was taken against the owner’s will for the purpose of enriching a corporation.

If you can’t wait:

https://www.moddb.com/mods/fallout-sonora-english

The Prosecutors: Legal Briefs, episode 117.

The show is hosted by two prosecutors, so in various episodes on criminal cases their opinions skew heavily pro-prosecutor, but when laying out facts like going through a SCOTUS case they tend to be more fact based and less opinion based, I have found.

cannot be set higher than an amount that is reasonably likely to ensure the defendant’s presence at the trial

That is a sentence that you can really roll over in your head. It does not necessarily also mean an amount within the resources of the defendant. I watch a lot of hearings, and something I’ve seen at least a few times is a set of allegations and past facts (usually something like multiple failures to appear in the past, and/or fleeing from police) in a situation where the actual charge being bailed on has a statutory requirement that bail be offered. The judge doesn’t want to let the person out on bail, so therefore sets the bail at $1 million or something which is functionally the same thing as not giving them bail.

Usually this triggers a motion for a hearing about the bail amount by the defense lawyer to argue down the amount, but if the court date on the charge is earlier than court date for the motion, it becomes a moot issue.

I’m not an expert, but I did just listen to a podcast on this (which basically makes me an expert, right?)

I think yes, technically, legally the federal government could. ‘Kelo v. City Of New London’ ruled that purely economic development was a sufficient justification for using the takings power (eminent domain). The reaction by most states was to make their own laws limiting eminent domain powers so that the Kelo situation couldn’t happen with the state government, but the federal government has never passed laws limiting its powers. Bills to limit federal power like S.1313 were introduced but never passed.

It interests me.

Yes, finally. This is exactly the kind of case I’m looking for. Now I can dig into the details of the court documents.

That is just one of the things that seems very off to me about the claim.

my guess is that it happens sometimes

I just want to see one case.

Maybe someone on Lemmy has found one.

And so, my question.

I’ve seen the claim about Target online for years now, sometimes even with people in comments saying they know someone (or know someone who knows someone) that this happened to, but even after all this time no easily found court case. Nobody who ever says they have first hand knowledge ever comes back to say what case it is. It seems like this would be a slamdunk piece of content for one of the various YouTube channels that covers legal drama, but I haven’t seen it. None of the news articles covering Target’s Judge Dredd tier stoploss ever have an update linking to a case. I just want to see it.

As infamous as Target’s stoploss is, I figured people more plugged in would already know where to look.

Thanks, but not relevant to my question.

I understand the turn of phrase. I don’t quite know what you mean in the application here.

I’m not sure if I entirely follow what you mean by “turning things on their head”. What are you getting at?

I’m not sure what you mean by this. The industrial revolutions were not just about burning coal.

Robber barons were in many ways also tied to coal.

Robber barons are just a more evocative way of framing the period compared to the dry Industrial Revolution term, similar to calling it the Gilded Age, but all the terms are roughly talking about the same time period.