No, it's not relevant in this thread. Post your question in the MA laws forum.
This. This is not a "ma legal minutae" thread.
![Laugh [laugh] [laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif)
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
No, it's not relevant in this thread. Post your question in the MA laws forum.
The state’s highest court has handed a victory to legal immigrants in Massachusetts who sued because they were excluded from subsidized health coverage.
The Supreme Judicial Court said that the law excluding the immigrants “violates their rights to equal protection under the Massachusetts Constitution.”
Facing a financial crisis, the state had cut all non-citizens from the program. But last year, the Supreme Judicial Court held that this kind of discrimination—based on alienage—could only be constitutional if the state’s justification were subjected to the highest form of legal scrutiny.
I heard a blurb on the radio about an SJC decision today regarding resident aliens and RomneyCare that mirrors the claim here.Good questions...We shall see if this is consistent with our case at some point. God knows when...
I heard a blurb on the radio about an SJC decision today regarding resident aliens and RomneyCare that mirrors the claim here.
So, of course they will ignore the precedent and rule against you...![]()
I know it was meant in jest to point out the hypocrisy of the the SJC. Though they did, according to the story, make a distinction between legal and illegal aliens which is a step in the right direction.The SJC health care case is a Massachusetts case; Fletcher v. Haas is a federal case - so I don't think a state court ruling, based on the state constitution, has any precedental impact upon a federal case following the US Consitition (although other federal cases, like Say v. KY may have some influence)
I know it was meant in jest to point out the hypocrisy of the the SJC. Though they did, according to the story, make a distinction between legal and illegal aliens which is a step in the right direction.
- Exactly!What was missing from the SJC decision was the phrase "....especially in this day and age".
Just became a Gold Sponsor...come on folks step up and donate to this organization!! They work for us and our second amendment rights.
We won. More details to follow.
We won. More details to follow.
So it's a partial win in that we as Comm2A didn't maintain standing. That therefore removed H1Bs, political refugees and students from the pile, all classes I personally believe should be granted LTCs like citizens. Lets see how the state responds to those classes but you can bet that they won't give us anything without another suit.
The case the judge cited in denying organizational standing was reversed and remanded on appeal. The appellate decision declined to reach the issue of standing for SAF, but explicitly overturned the denial of standing for the individual plaintiff. It's waiting for judgement on motions on remand.
Could you define "maintain standing" for us legal noobs?
So does this mean that green card holders are now able to get an LTC-A but not other classes of legal immigrants?
Also, does this have further implications for the gun rights situation in MA?
"The defendants’ reading of Heller requires a considerable analytical strain. " The latter is probably as close as an article III judge gets to calling bullshit.
The case the judge cited in denying organizational standing was reversed and remanded on appeal. The appellate decision declined to reach the issue of standing for SAF, but explicitly overturned the denial of standing for the individual plaintiff. It's waiting for judgement on motions on remand.