Micro Nugget 770 Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 This morning the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. The resulting opinion could impact the ability of states to restrict suction dredging. In Texas the state enacted various laws that allegedly were intended to restrict a constitutional right (abortion), thus setting up a judicial reexamination of the standards employed to determine the extent to which a state can craft laws to restrict a federal constitutional right. Dredging, of course, is a federal right albeit not an express constitutional right. However, citizens have a constitutional right to due process and equal protection of the law. A decision in Hellerstedt should be filed around June 2016, but with only eight justices participating a definitive opinion may not result. Just want to give a head's up regarding the potential relevance of this case to protection of our federal mining rights. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alwaysdirty 918 Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Ohhh! That's how they get the fetus out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
skunked 9 Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Yes, we could also impact many state Mary Jane laws. Seeing as Marijuana Possession and use it is still a FEDERAL offense, if Federal law trumps State law, all the New legalization laws might be endangered. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Micro Nugget 770 Posted June 28, 2016 Author Share Posted June 28, 2016 Well I'll be... With only 8 sitting justices the Supremes none-the-less mustered a 5-3 opinion striking down the Texas laws in Hellerstedt that created "undue" roadblocks that interfered with the exercise of a constitutional right. This development raises a possible new argument in the dredge cases: Has California unduly interfered with the exercise of a federal right via a denial of due process argument by creating laws and regulations that are virtually impossible to meet? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hoser John 1,240 Posted June 28, 2016 Share Posted June 28, 2016 Keith Walker, 1 of the SB Court case 8 is working on this aspect of 120 now for when SB reconvenes it's ALL OR NUTTN'- thanx much for post-John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AuTSaurus 33 Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 23 hours ago, Micro Nugget said: Well I'll be... With only 8 sitting justices the Supremes none-the-less mustered a 5-3 opinion striking down the Texas laws in Hellerstedt that created "undue" roadblocks that interfered with the exercise of a constitutional right. This development raises a possible new argument in the dredge cases: Has California unduly interfered with the exercise of a federal right via a denial of due process argument by creating laws and regulations that are virtually impossible to meet? To answer your question, I would say that the answer to that is a resounding "YES"!!!!! That is just my opinion, though, ..... and I am aware that opinions are like other parts of the anatomy, Ha! Greg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
matt 188 Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 When does the court reconvene in San Bernadino? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hoser John 1,240 Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 Ochoa is waiting on the Rinehart decision from the Supreme Court as he was the Judge who ruled in favor of federal preemption over states insanity. Yes they can over rule his decision so he has to base his on theirs--which also hinged on the Oregon FP case that was LOST horrendously....games games games over a right they never had the color of law to deny in the first place sic sic sic... John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.