Lake Erie Conservative

thoughtful discussion(s) about issue(s)

Posts Tagged ‘court precedent’

… This Guy has Guys [#stock pond][#Wyoming]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Sunday,August 28th,2016

.. Andy Johnson is a cattle farmer ..

.. he was just trying to do what made sense . He requested and received the proper permits [state and federal] to build what is known as a stock pond on his land ..

.. he needs it to water and feed his various animals . The creek that runs thru his lands is not navigable . it is especially not what is known as a ” navigable water , ” as one would know it under the Clean Water Act . So Johnson should be able to build his pond without interference . Well , you would be wrong ..

.. [h/t — HotAir.com]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. in January of 2014 , the EPA sat on Johnson . Literally . They nailed him with a fine of $37,500 . Per Day . The amount of the fine [roughly] , as of now ? About $16 million , total …

.. what about appeals court precedent and Supreme Court precedent do these dummies not understand ?!?!

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… This One is Important [#Legal Attack on Racial Preferences]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,March 17th,2016

.. it could have been any school across the country .

.. in this case , it was one private school [Harvard College] and one public state university [the University of North Carolina] …

.. [h/t — m.NationalReview.com]…
.. [link] to the blog news …

.. the lawsuit is gutsy , as well as a new front in the legal war that seeks to end racial preferences across the nation . They have to do it themselves , unfortunately , because they are not going to get any help from the ObamaCraps …

.. the ObamaCraps , especially , are about as pro – racial preferences a presidential administration that I have ever heard of . You can go back to the origination of the preferences , under both Republican and DemoCrap POTUSes . None of them have been this radical . None …

.. ironically , it is not white folks who are being discriminated against in this case . Nope , not this time . It is Asians , of all people , who are getting nailed by the racial preferences in admissions . Presumably , it is happening at the graduate and doctoral levels , as well …

.. I wish them God Speed , and good luck !! …

Posted in body of law, legal info, legal strategy, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… On This , This Might Surprise You [#Ohio][#17-year-olds voting in primary]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,March 14th,2016

.. i am a damn strong srout and stubborn conservative ..

.. but in this instance , I agree with the kids …. and with Bernie Sanders …

.. the beef is this . the 17 year olds want to vote . Normally , they do not get to do so . But , if they turn 18 before the general election , then , under Ohio law , they do get to vote [if they are registered] , but on candidates only . No voting in the primary on issues ; that is a big no – no .

.. Well , it seems that earlier this year Ohio Secretary of State [Chief Elections Officer] Jon Husted changed his interpretation of the law . Since the young people were electing delegates to nominate a POTUS nominee , then they could not vote at all . Boy , was Husted wrong ..

.. [h/t — Newsmax.com]..
.. [link] to the news article ..

.. Husted ‘ s interpretation is in clear contravention to decades of Ohio law , and Ohio State Supreme Court precedent . Whoops ..

.. a state judge slapped him down , and rightfully . Well , originally , Husted was going to appeal . He has changed his mind ..

.. I am thankfull that he has done so . His judgement on the law was badly mistaken . It was not the law when I first registered to vote 34 years ago . If you were 17 , but turned 18 before the general election , they then could vote in the primary [but not on issues ] . It still is …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Today is A – Day [#Argument Day]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,March 4th,2015

.. yep , it is Argument Day .

.. today , arguments are held at the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of King v Burwell . Yep , it is another ObamaCrapCare care ..

.. except in this case , it is damn serious . Given the actions of the Government , and , in particular , the Infernal Revenue Service , it is absolutely critical ….

.. the Government feels that they can re – write and re – interpret statutes as they see fit . No , they cannot . The precedent that was set in the ruling Chevron v NRDC [commonly called ” Chevron Deference] . The government has some latitude , but only so much latitude in calling a spade a spade . In other words , they cannot engage in creative writing by rewriting and reinterpreting a statute …

.. Professor Jon Adler [of CWRU] and Michael Cannon [of the Cato Institute] really hit a home run when they did the ground – breaking research on their paper . They really hit the nail on the head . The government went too far …

.. now , it is up to the U.S. Supreme Court . One part of the decision is to make the tough decision . The Government royally screwed up . Someone needs to hold them to account for it . The other is to actually hold the government to account …

Posted in communications strategy, constitutional opinion, legal question, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Great News on Gun Rights [#Peoples Republic of D.C.]

Posted by paulfromwloh on Sunday,August 3rd,2014

.. yes , it is free .

.. our nation ‘ s capital is now no longer a gun free zone ..

.. for many years , the District of Columbia has had one of , if not the fiercest gun grab laws in the country . You simply could not carry a gun on the streets of the District for ANY reason , for more than 50 years ..

.. [h/t — LegalInsurrection]..
.. [link] to the legal opinion ..

.. it will be interesting to see what the D.C. city government decides to do . This case is in federal court , not the captive courts of the District , and would go up to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals , where both Heller and McDonald originated . I think that the government wants to appeal this , and maintain their precious gun ban , but the gun grab groups may well be having second thoughts ..

.. First , this one has to go to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals . It now has a more stacked 7to4 democrap majority , but Heller and McDonald are binding precedent . They just may well try to mess with them, surprisingly enough . Doing so , though , would piss off the Supremes ….

.. Heller and McDonald were decided 6 to 3 , not 5 to 4  , so they are not slim majorities . The gun – grab groups may not want to risk setting a nationwide case precedent . Drake v. Jerejian might be one case . Moore v Madigan might be another case . Palmer just may be a case were  the gun grab groups are stupid enough to push it up the way , and have it blow up in their faces  ..

.. especially when the definition of ” bear ” arms comes from , not a majority opinion , but a dissent , and of all people , from Justice Ginsberg in a dissent in another case …

Posted in 2nd Amendment, constitutional opinion, legal opinion, legal question, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… What Part of Court Precedent does the City of Chicago not Understand [gun rights / gun sales]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,July 8th,2014

.. I am talking about court precedent , such as Heller v DC [gun rights] , McDonald v City of Chicago [ditto] , and Moore v. Madigan [likewise] …

.. Mayor Rahm Emmanuel is living dangerously …

.. he has to be reasonable , or the court is going to do the job for him ..

.. [h/t — TruthRevolt]..
.. [link] to the article …

.. until this year , gun sales were effectively prohibited in the City of Chicago . No more . Courtesy of a ruling in a case brought by the Illinois Shooting Sports Federation , Federal Judge Edward Change basically slapped down the city . He has given the city up to 6 months to enact gun store sales regulations . If they do not straighten up and fly right , the judge can enact them by court ruling …

.. if he has to do that , it will be open season in the City . Which City Hall will hate with a passion . Those dummies have to remember , they are still under the precedent from Chang ‘ s original ruling , plus the ruling in Moore v. Madigan . They have to obey it . like it or not …

.. they may wish that the state would appeal Moore to the US Supreme Court , but the anti – gun groups are scared to death . If the Moore precedent is applied nationwide , a whole boatload of gun laws , like the Wiilliams Act and SAFE in New York (for example) would go bye – bye …

Posted in 2nd Amendment, legal info, legal opinion, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Is California this Nutty ?!?! …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,March 18th,2014

.. unbelievably , yes …

.. I am no expert on sex and relationships , god knows … I am as shy and as private as it gets , and I am a social klutz … but this proposal in California is ridiculous …

.. most people , including many in relationships and marriages engage in making whoopie (sex) without saying a word … now , the legislature is proposing to say that , up front , that sex without affirmative verbal consent is automatically sexual assault ? Are they going crazy ?

.. do they have something better to do ….

.. [h/t — LegalInsurrection]..

.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. from the posting …

Since most couples have engaged in sex without “verbal” consent, supporters of the bill are effectively redefining most people, and most happily-married couples, as rapists. By demanding verbal discussion before sex, they are also meddling in people’s sex lives in a prurient fashion.  (Whether consent is explicit is often inversely related to whether sex is really welcome, with grudgingly consensual acts often being preceded by more explicit discussion and haggling than acts that are truly welcomed and enjoyed, as I explain here).

Requiring people to have verbal discussions before sex violates their privacy rights, under the logic of Supreme Court decisions such as Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which struck down Texas’s sodomy law, and federal appeals court decisions like Wilson v. Taylor (1984), which ruled that dating relationships are protected against unwarranted meddling by the Constitutional freedom of intimate association.

It also serves no legitimate purpose, since even supporters of the bill, like Tara Culp-Ressler have on other occasions admitted that sexual violence is not the result of mixed signals: studies show that people who commit sexual violence are almost always aware that what they are doing is against the will of their victims, rather than the assault being the product of “blurred” communications.

Defining sex as rape merely because there was no verbal discussion in advance trivializes rape and brands innocent people as rapists (including some people who themselves have been sexually victimized in the past).

Disturbingly, it’s not just sex they want to regulate, but also “sexual activity” in general. The bill may require affirmative consent before multiple steps in the process of foreplay that leads to sex, even between couples who have engaged in the same pattern of foreplay before on countless occasions.

The bill states:

“’Affirmative consent’ is a freely and affirmatively communicated willingness to participate in particular sexual activity or behavior, expressed either by words or clear, unambiguous actions. . . The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of a past sexual relationship, shall not provide the basis for an assumption of consent.”

This disregards common sense, since what people intend or consent to is often illustrated by the history or nature of their relationship, such as when courts determine the intent of the parties to a contract by looking at the past course of dealings between the parties.

In addition to endangering privacy rights, SB 967 also contains provisions that could undermine students’ due process rights, such as mandating a low standard of proof for discipline, and encouraging anonymous allegations, as I explained in a letter published last month in the Sacramento Bee. The bill’s requirements apply not just to public colleges, but also to certain private colleges.

On February 25, the University of California system appears to have essentially adopted most of the requirements of SB 967, in a new policy defining “sexual assault” and “sexual violence,” to include some conduct that is not violent at all.

What concerns me most is that the policy defines “sexual assault” to require “unambiguous” “affirmative” consent prior not just to penetration (which is not always unreasonable if consent is defined to include non-verbal cues as well as verbal responses), but also “physical sexual activity” in general.

Effectively, this might ban foreplay as it commonly occurs among married and unmarried couples alike, as I explain in more detail at this link.

Yet, the University of California policy says:

“Sexual Assault occurs when physical sexual activity is engaged without the consent of the other person or when the other person is unable to consent to the activity. . . .Consent is informed. Consent is an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity. . .Consent means positive cooperation in the act or expression of intent to engage in the act . . . Consent to some form of sexual activity does not imply consent to other forms of sexual activity. Consent to sexual activity on one occasion is not consent to engage in sexual activity on another occasion. A current or previous dating or sexual relationship, by itself, is not sufficient to constitute consent. . .Consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter.”

Although this language is vague (at one point, it allows consent to be based on “positive cooperation,” which might extend beyond consent in advance), it clearly defines some sex and sexual activity as sexual assault on campus, even if it would be perfectly legal off campus (it does so even more clearly than SB 967 does).

It does that even though college students are largely adults who have the right to vote, get married, and serve in the military. For example, students have First Amendment rights that are largely “coextensive” with their rights in society generally, as the Supreme Court has indicated in decisions such as Papish v. University of Missouri Curators, Healy v. James, and Rosenberger v. University of Virginia. (Disclosure: I used to practice education law for a living.).

The assumption seems to be that California’s general definition of sexual assault, which applies off campus, is too narrow. But this assumption is dubious, and in a few rare situations existing law is already too broad, as I discuss here.

 

 

 

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »