Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: cripplecreek

:: The court says the ban puts an extraordinary burden on those who have to mount a long expensive campaign if they want to protect it. ::

And when dealing with government regulators such as the EPA (as I do daily), we are always told, “financial burdens are no defense in efforts to comply”.


5 posted on 11/15/2012 1:15:08 PM PST by Cletus.D.Yokel (Bread and Circuses; Everyone to the Coliseum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Cletus.D.Yokel
Like the judge who denied an Allen West motion in Palm Beach county said "the legislature, not courts, sets election procedures".. THEN WHY DO THE COURTS OVERTURN STATE VOTER I.D. LAWS, HUH?!!!!!!
24 posted on 11/15/2012 1:38:35 PM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (IMPEACH OBAMA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel
Actually, the USSC flipped that on the vacant lot EPA wanted to say was a wetland ~ there EPA said it was too 'spensive to buy it but they could regulate the owners into the dirt with legal costs for cross suits.

Interesting to see this show up in an affirmative action case ~ but there you have it.

29 posted on 11/15/2012 1:43:17 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson