MT EQC to determine corner crossing as "illegal"

[TOGIE]

As for giving an opinion/clarification on whether a policy or law is "legal" during the sausage making, my experience is that those who care gather as many lawyers that will agree with their interpretation as they can and write massive briefs as to why they are right. That doesn't mean it will pass a true legal test down the road. I just don't think the courts have a role to step in during the sausage making. Takes the lawmaking out of the hands of the voter via their elected reps. It would be faster in a lot of cases assuming the courts rule the way you want them to. If they didn't, well .....

no i don't think anyone is saying the courts should or do have a roll in the sausage making, just that the Lieutenant Governor is trying to make sausage without pork.

pork that may or may not exist until courts can settle the matter.

bit of a schrodingers cat, corner crossing is.

 

[Big Fin]

I might be dense or splitting hairs, but I am still not following your argument. You want "a court" to clarify the issue but not the 9th? A Montana court then? If MT did that and another court, say in CA, rules the opposite, then the 9th would get it. If a MT court ruled CC is illegal and someone is convicted, an appeal to the 9th seems highly likely. Whether the 9th points to the ruling of the 10th and says "we agree" is anyone's guess.

As for giving an opinion/clarification on whether a policy or law is "legal" during the sausage making, my experience is that those who care gather as many lawyers that will agree with their interpretation as they can and write massive briefs as to why they are right. That doesn't mean it will pass a true legal test down the road. I just don't think the courts have a role to step in during the sausage making. Takes the lawmaking out of the hands of the voter via their elected reps. It would be faster in a lot of cases assuming the courts rule the way you want them to. If they didn't, well .....

I'm not sure where you get that I'm asking a court to do anything right now. I'm not.

I am stating that the role of the courts is to clarify the legality of corner crossing in Montana, not EQC, not the Lt. Governor, nor any other politicians. Clarity will happen in time, through court cases, maybe legislation, maybe some other mechanism outside the 10th Circuit. I'm not trying to force that.

We all benefit from clarification, not political posturing. The effort of the Lt. Gov. is tainted due to the approach and who has been made privy to her presentation. This is about politics and about trying to use the position of power to avoid the scrutiny of law, like what the Wyoming case was subjected to.

 

[Alpine01]

I'm not sure where you get that I'm asking a court to do anything right now. I'm not.

Ok. I read that you wanted the courts to provide clarity on the issue rather the Lt. Gov or any other politician and that clarity was in lieu of what the Lt Gov. is trying to do now. So clarity now was the priority. Thanks for making that distinction. In terms of final clarity on the issue, then yes, the courts need to do that.

I am stating that the role of the courts is to clarify the legality of corner crossing in Montana, not EQC, not the Lt. Governor, nor any other politicians. Clarity will happen in time, through court cases, maybe legislation, maybe some other mechanism outside the 10th Circuit. I'm not trying to force that.

Copy. Agree. In due time.

The effort of the Lt. Gov. is tainted due to the approach and who has been made privy to her presentation.

No doubt. But if she is building a legal basis on which to set CC policy, it doesn't surprise me a bit that she keeps the details pretty close to the vest until she is ready to set that policy in motion in public. Doesn't mean it will pass the court review at a later time. If she is trying to define new law outside of the legislative process, then she has overstepped her authority and the Legislature should step in/step up and do their job.

This is about politics and about trying to use the position of power to avoid the scrutiny of law, like what the Wyoming case was subjected to.

No doubt what the Lt Gov. is doing has a large degree of political posturing. A very large fraction of lawmaking is all about politics. Not sure I see the avoidance of scrutiny of the law though. As a member of the Executive branch, if she can find an existing law on the books that can be used as a basis to "enforce" CC as an illegal activity, she has every right to do so. The courts can provide that scrutiny if/when someone is convicted of an illegal CC or when a private landowner files a suit against a supposed trespasser which is what prompted the 10th's review and ruling. So scrutiny will happen, but perhaps much later than anyone would like. Personally, I think the Lt Gov should point to the 10th's ruling as to why CC is already considered legal and let those applying the pressure go pound sand. But as you say, this is a political move. Voters will ultimately decide whether that was a good or bad political decision.

 

[seeth07]

It may not be the best way to go and may cost a lot more money but technically if Montana wants to go ahead and pass a state law thru whatever means they wish to get there, doesn't that directly open the door for an organization that is pro public lands to fight it? They can file suit against the state of Montana for the law being unconstitutional in which hopefully the 9th circuit court takes up the case? and if the 9th circuit court takes up the case and rules in favor of it being illegal, isn't it almost certain to go to the supreme court to determine whether the 9th or 10th court is right?