Daily Archives: January 9, 2022

The Supreme Court has issued two opinions in Whole Womans Health v. Jackson, the first on September 1 and the second on December 10, 2021. The case deals with the Texas abortion law known as S.B. 8, which prohibits abortion in Texas after six weeks of pregnancy.

By enacting this law, the lawmakers effectively thumbed their noses at Roe v. Wade, which sets the abortion barrier at viability, meaning a gestational age of about 24 weeks. Some clever person came up with a private civil-enforcement scheme that takes the government out of the process. Instead, the law authorizes anyone from anywhere to bring a civil lawsuit against a physician who violates the six-week limit, as well as anyone who aids or abets the doctor.

Such a private enforcer doesnt need to show any personal interest in the matter, any connection to Texas, or for that matter any opinion one way or the other regarding a womans right to choose. Success in court rewards the person with a $10,000 bounty for each violation plus lawyers fees.

The question on the Courts Shadow Docket last September was whether to leave the law in effect while various challenges wend their way through the courts. You dont have to be a lawyer, or pro-choice, to know that when a law is unconstitutional, as this one is so long as Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land, then a state cant opt-out from Article VI, paragraph 2, of the U.S. Constitution.

That article says that the Constitution shall be the supreme Law of the Land. It goes on to say that the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, no matter what law the state may enact.

The September 1 ruling, consisting of one very long paragraph, says that the healthcare clinic had not met its preliminary-injunction burden to show that it is likely to succeed on the merits, or that putting a hold on the statute would be consistent with the public interest. In other words, the Supremacy Clause is not so supreme.

How would any of us feel if we were hauled into court by a bounty hunter in a state that had passed a law prohibiting the use of birth-control devices, even though the Supreme Court decided in 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut, that we have a constitutional right to do so?

The December 10 opinion does not deal with the six weeks law. The Court is already considering whether to uphold the Mississippi 15-week rule and thereby overturn the Roe v. Wade viability standard. Instead, the issue this time was whether Texas has outwitted the Constitution by creating a virtually unchallengeable enforcement system.

The clinic prevailed, but just barely. While holding that the sovereign immunity doctrine and the federal case or controversy requirement rule out suing judges, court clerks and the state attorney general as parties, the Court decided that state licensing officials were properly named, so the case can proceed against them. At the same time, the Court held to its earlier ruling, once again leaving the Texas law fully operational.

In his separate opinion, Chief Justice Roberts, no fan of Roe v. Wade, acknowledged that the effect of S.B. 8 is to deny a right protected under the federal Constitution. As he pointed out, whats at stake in the case is not the particular federal right but rather the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system.

Justice Sotomayor, writing for herself and Justices Breyer and Kagan, dissented from both decisions. As usual, she minced no words, finding the September refusal to enjoin S.B. 8 stunning and accusing the Justices in the majority of burying their heads in the sand.

It cannot be the law, she wrote, that a state can evade constitutional scrutiny by outsourcing the enforcement of unconstitutional laws to its citizenry.

In her December dissent, Sotomayor would keep state court officials and the state attorney general in the case. But her wrath with the Texas legislature and her fellow justices remains unabated. She compares S.B. 8 to the philosophy of slavery supporter John C. Calhoun, who insisted that the states have the right to nullify federal law with which they disagree. And she hasnt gotten over the previous ruling which refused to put a stop to the havoc S.B. 8s unconstitutional scheme has wrought for Texas women.

How disappointing it is that our highest court has allowed the State of Texas to nullify the Supremacy Clause, even for a minute, much less months. Allowing abortion providers to pursue their challenge, even though only against state licensing officials, represents a partial victory for the clinic and common sense, and it may be that the Texas enforcement scheme will be held unconstitutional. In the meanwhile, pregnant women whose constitutional rights have been taken away will never get them back.

Ironically, the State of California may enact copycat legislation permitting private bounty hunters to sue people who are exercising gun ownership rights protected by the Courts Second Amendment ruling. Such a law would suffer the same enforcement infirmities as S.B. 8.

Yale has taken Calhouns name off the undergraduate residential hall long known as Calhoun College, but he must be smiling from the grave.

(Attorney Joseph D. Steinfield lives in Keene. He can be reached at joe@joesteinfield.com.)

More:
My Turn: It's not just about abortion rights, it's about the Constitution - Concord Monitor

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

The race for Texas governor was kickstarted Saturday as Gov. Greg Abbott and Democratic challenger Beto O'Rourke returned to the campaign trail along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Abbott formally announced his bid for a third term in McAllen, saying he was running to "keep Texas on the right course." Minutes earlier, O'Rourke was back on the stump in his hometown of El Paso, accusing Abbott of not listening to border communities like his.

During Abbott's roughly half-hour speech in McAllen, he focused on issues that included taxes, education and law enforcement. The governor largely avoided some of the most dramatic chapters he has faced in his second term, including the coronavirus pandemic and the power-grid failure after February's winter storm. While Abbott did not mention O'Rourke by name, he made a few clear references to him and broadly attacked Democrats.

Ad

"We cannot let big-government liberals redesign our state with the progressive agenda that is destroying some parts of America," Abbott said. "We need a proven winner who will fight to secure the future of Texas. That is why today I am in the Rio Grande Valley to officially announce my reelection."

Abbott delivered the speech at his campaign's Hispanic Leadership Summit, a notable setting as Republicans set out ambitious plans for 2022 in South Texas. President Joe Biden underperformed last year in the predominantly Hispanic, traditionally Democratic area. Abbott, who according to exit polling received 44% and 42% of the Hispanic vote in his past two campaigns, has made clear he wants to win the Hispanic vote in his reelection bid.

Touting his two terms in office, Abbott criticized Biden, saying he had not done enough to secure the border. The governor claimed that, under his leadership, Texas "responded with the strongest border security effort by any state ever in the history of the United States of America." That has included Texas' own border wall, which began construction last month, and the deployment of thousands of National Guard troops to the border. That deployment has faced criticism from Abbott's challengers in both parties, following reports of suicides and pay issues.

Ad

Addressing supporters outside a brewery in El Paso, O'Rourke said border communities do not want walls and "militarization." But O'Rourke said Abbott does not trust border communities to develop their own solutions to immigration challenges.

"We want people who come to this country to do it the right way, to follow the law," O'Rourke said. "We want there to be order and not chaos, but we have the best idea, because of the best experiences, in how to make that happen."

The dueling events marked the starting gun of the election year in Texas, especially for Abbott. He is launching a statewide media buy Monday, and his campaign has promised he will appear at 60 events before the March 1 primary.

Both Abbott and O'Rourke have to get through that primary before facing one another. O'Rourke faces minimal primary opposition, while Abbott has a group of challengers who have been hounding him from the right for months. While polling has shown him in a comfortable position heading into March, Abbott has spent the past year moving the state firmly to the right by championing laws that, for example, allow permitless carry of handguns and impose restrictive abortion measures.

Ad

Those laws have been at the center of O'Rourke's case against Abbott, along with the COVID-19 pandemic and the grid failure that left millions of Texans and has been linked to 246 deaths. Abbott, who has expressed confidence that lawmakers have done enough to prevent another grid collapse, did not broach the topic in his McAllen speech. He mentioned COVID-19 twice, but primarily focused on laws he pushed that prevent government officials from closing churches during emergencies and that provided civil liability protections for businesses that operated during the pandemic.

Abbott sought a contrast with O'Rourke by promoting the permitless carry law, which proponents call "constitutional carry."

"While some have threatened to come and take your guns, I signed more than 20 laws to protect your Second Amendment rights, including making Texas a 'constitutional carry' state," Abbott said.

As a 2020 presidential candidate, O'Rourke vowed during a debate that "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47." At the time, he was promoting a mandatory buyback of assault weapons, which he proposed in response to the 2019 El Paso Walmart massacre that targeted Hispanics. O'Rourke has stood by that proposal in his current campaign.

Ad

In recent days, O'Rourke has been increasingly focused on Abbott's border-security blitz, including the reports of poor conditions for National Guardsmen. He has said Abbott is using the troops as "political pawns."

On Saturday, O'Rourke said Abbott sees border communities as a "prop" to spread fear about immigrants. He also called out Abbott for a fundraising letter he sent before the Walmart shooting in El Paso that implored supporters to "DEFEND" the border.

"Here in El Paso, we know perhaps better than anyone else that those aren't just words," O'Rourke said.

During his speech, Abbott offered a handful of sharp attacks on Democrats but otherwise focused on promoting his accomplishments during his tenure and making promises for his next term. He specifically promised to deliver a "bill of rights" to ensure further property tax relief and another one to make sure parents have a greater say in their children's education. Specifics about the policies he would propose were not immediately available.

Ad

Erin Douglas contributed reporting.

More here:
Abbott, O'Rourke lead off election year with visits to border cities - KSAT San Antonio

TORONTO, Jan. 07, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Marathon Gold Corporation (Marathon or the Company; TSX: MOZ) is pleased to report that it has filed an amendment to the Environmental Impact Statement (the EIS and, as amended, the amended-EIS) for the Valentine Gold Project (the Project) located in the central region of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL).

The amended-EIS has been filed with the Environmental Assessment Division of the NL Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) pursuant to the Projects ongoing Environmental Assessment (EA), and is the second such amendment filed. The amended-EIS addresses all requests for additional information on the Project received by Marathon from the NL Minister of Environment and Climate Change (the Minister) on October 29, 2021, including in the areas of Caribou Protection and Effects Monitoring, Victoria Lake Reservoir and Victoria Dam Effects and Mitigations, and Effects on Human Health, amongst others.

Matt Manson, President and CEO, commented: Since the commencement of the EA process for the Valentine Gold Project in April 2019, Marathon has worked diligently to measure and describe the full range of potential social and environmental impacts from the development and operation of the Project, and their mitigations. This large body of work, that includes several years of detailed environmental and social baseline data, is contained within the Projects EIS. The filing of this second amendment to the EIS is in response to the provincial review comments that we received at the time of the October 29, 2021 letter issued to us by the NL Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Since that time our team has worked diligently to address the issues raised in the Ministers letter. This includes the completion of a Caribou Protection and Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan (the Caribou Plan) that fully operationalizes our proposed monitoring programs for potential impacts on caribou behaviour arising from the Project, and their mitigations. The Caribou Plan has been developed in close consultation with the Wildlife Division of the NL Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, and has benefitted from engagement with impacted NL stakeholders and Indigenous groups. Todays filing triggers a new 70-day round of technical and public review of the amended-EIS, as prescribed within the provincial EA process. At the end of this period, the Minister will have a further opportunity to make a determination on the acceptability of the Project. Successful completion of the provincial EA process this spring, and the completion of the parallel federal EA process, will allow us to commence the Projects activity-specific permitting process ahead of anticipated ground-breaking in the third quarter of this year.

The Valentine Gold Project is subject to regulation under the environmental protection regimes of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and the NL Environmental Protection Act. Marathon filed a Project Description with both the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) and the NL DECC on April 5, 2019, which was accepted into the formal EA process on April 16, 2019. An Environmental Assessment Committee for the Project was established on July 3, 2019, and the Projects EIS was filed on September 29, 2020. The EIS was accepted as conforming with guidelines on November 3, 2020 and has been undergoing formal review since this time.

Both the federal and provincial EA processes provide for the technical review of the EIS by multiple government agencies and the opportunity for public comment. Following initial regulatory and public review, federal Information Requirements (IRs) and provincial review comments were issued to Marathon in February 2021. The IRs and review comments are a routine part of the EA process, reflecting requested clarifications or information on various aspects of the EIS received from regulators, Indigenous groups, the public, and other stakeholders.

Marathon completed the submission of responses to 76 first-round federal IRs on May 3, 2021. Responses to 362 first-round provincial review comments were submitted on August 3, 2021. In the provincial process, responses to review comments take the form of an amendment to the EIS. IAAC subsequently issued a second round of 23 federal IRs, to which Marathon submitted responses on October 18, 2021. On October 29, 2021, Marathon was informed by the NL Minister of Environment and Climate Change that it would be required to respond to a second round of 33 provincial review comments, with responses to take the form of a second amendment to the EIS. Since this time, an additional 3 IRs have been received from the federal regulator and responded to.

Marathons filing of the amended-EIS with the provincial regulator starts an additional 70-day period of technical review and opportunity for public comment. At the end of this period, the Minister has up to 10 days to issue a decision as to whether the amended-EIS is acceptable or if further work is required. If the amended-EIS is deemed to be acceptable, the Minister has up to a further 30 days to make a recommendation to the provincial cabinet as to whether the Project should be released from its EA. Should the Minister decide that additional information is needed, a further round of review comments will result, triggering another round of response preparation, EIS amendment, and technical and public review. The federal EA process under the authority of IAAC remains ongoing in parallel with the provincial EA process. Release from both EA processes in a timely fashion, and the completion of sufficient activity-specific permitting, is a pre-requisite for the commencement of Project construction.

Qualified Persons

Disclosure of a scientific or technical nature in this news release has been approved by Mr. Tim Williams, FAusIMM, Chief Operating Officer of Marathon and Mr. James Powell, P.Eng. (NL), Vice President, Regulatory and Government Affairs for Marathon. Mr. Williams and Mr. Powell are qualified persons under National Instrument (NI) 43-101.

About Marathon

Marathon (TSX:MOZ) is a Toronto based gold company advancing its 100%-owned Valentine Gold Project located in the central region of Newfoundland and Labrador, one of the top mining jurisdictions in the world.The Project comprises a series of five mineralized deposits along a 20-kilometre system. An April 2021 Feasibility Study outlined an open pit mining and conventional milling operation over a thirteen-year mine life with a 31.5% after-tax rate of return. The Project has estimated Proven Mineral Reserves of 1.40 Moz (29.68 Mt at 1.46 g/t) and Probable Mineral Reserves of 0.65 Moz (17.38 Mt at 1.17 g/t). Total Measured Mineral Resources (inclusive of the Mineral Reserves) comprise 1.92 Moz (32.59 Mt at 1.83 g/t) with Indicated Mineral Resources (inclusive of the Mineral Reserves) of 1.22 Moz (24.07 Mt at 1.57 g/t). Additional Inferred Mineral Resources are 1.64 Moz (29.59 Mt at 1.72 g/t Au). Please see Marathons Amended and Restated Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2020 and other filings made with Canadian securities regulatory authorities and available at http://www.sedar.com for further details and assumptions relating to the Valentine Gold Project.

For more information, please contact:

To find out more information on Marathon Gold Corporation and the Valentine Gold Project, please visit http://www.marathon-gold.com.

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information

Certain information contained in this news release, constitutes forward-looking information within the meaning of Canadian securities laws (forward-looking statements). All statements in this news release, other than statements of historical fact, which address events, results, outcomes or developments that Marathon expects to occur are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include statements that are predictive in nature, depend upon or refer to future events or conditions, or include words such as expects, anticipates, plans, believes, estimates, considers, intends, targets, or negative versions thereof and other similar expressions, or future or conditional verbs such as may, will, should, would and could. We provide forward-looking statements for the purpose of conveying information about our current expectations and plans relating to the future, and readers are cautioned that such statements may not be appropriate for other purposes. More particularly and without restriction, this news release contains forward-looking information, including statements as to management's expectations with respect to, among other things, the matters and activities contemplated in this news release.

Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and assumptions and accordingly, actual results and future events could differ materially from those expressed or implied in such statements. You are hence cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. In respect of the forward-looking statements concerning the interpretation of exploration results and the impact on the Projects mineral resource estimate, the Company has provided such statements in reliance on certain assumptions it believes are reasonable at this time, including assumptions as to the continuity of mineralization between drill holes. A mineral resource that is classified as inferred or indicated has a great amount of uncertainty as to its existence and economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be assumed that any or part of an indicated mineral resource or inferred mineral resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category of mineral resource. Investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of mineral deposits in these categories will ever be converted into proven and probable mineral reserves.

By its nature, this information is subject to inherent risks and uncertainties that may be general or specific and which give rise to the possibility that expectations, forecasts, predictions, projections or conclusions will not prove to be accurate, that assumptions may not be correct and that objectives, strategic goals and priorities will not be achieved. Factors that could cause future results or events to differ materially from current expectations expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements include risks and uncertainties relating to the interpretation of drill results, the geology, grade and continuity of mineral deposits and conclusions of economic evaluations; uncertainty as to estimation of mineral resources; inaccurate geological and metallurgical assumptions (including with respect to the size, grade and recoverability of mineral resources); the potential for delays or changes in plans in exploration or development projects or capital expenditures, or the completion of feasibility studies due to changes in logistical, technical or other factors; the possibility that future exploration, development, construction or mining results will not be consistent with the Companys expectations; risks related to the ability of the current exploration program to identify and expand mineral resources; risks relating to possible variations in grade, planned mining dilution and ore loss, or recovery rates and changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined; operational mining and development risks, including risks related to accidents, equipment breakdowns, labour disputes (including work stoppages and strikes) or other unanticipated difficulties with or interruptions in exploration and development; risks related to the inherent uncertainty of production and cost estimates and the potential for unexpected costs and expenses; risks related to commodity and power prices, foreign exchange rate fluctuations and changes in interest rates; the uncertainty of profitability based upon the cyclical nature of the mining industry; risks related to failure to obtain adequate financing on a timely basis and on acceptable terms or delays in obtaining governmental or other stakeholder approvals or in the completion of development or construction activities; risks related to environmental regulation and liability, government regulation and permitting; risks relating to the Companys ability to attract and retain skilled staff; risks relating to the timing of the receipt of regulatory and governmental approvals for continued operations and future development projects; political and regulatory risks associated with mining and exploration; risks relating to the potential impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Company and the mining industry; changes in general economic conditions or conditions in the financial markets; and other risks described in Marathons documents filed with Canadian securities regulatory authorities, including the Amended and Restated Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2020.

You can find further information with respect to these and other risks in Marathons Amended and Restated Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2020 and other filings made with Canadian securities regulatory authorities available at http://www.sedar.com. Other than as specifically required by law, Marathon undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which such statement is made, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, whether as a result of new information, future events or results otherwise.

Read the original here:
Marathon Gold Announces Filing of Amendment to the EIS for the Valentine Gold Project in Newfoundland and Labrador - Junior Mining Network