Trump Judge with the ruling.

If the judiciary is going to be political its good to have your side in there. The left understands that much more than then right

Hail ya they're unconstitutional!

After the 1st month most of these idiot governors have just been making it up as they went with little power to do so.

What parts?

(09-14-2020 01:05 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  What parts?

Quote: In the 66-page ruling, U.S. District Judge William S. Stickman IV found that the Wolf administration’s policy limiting indoor and outdoor gatherings to 25 and 250 people, respectively, violates “the right of assembly enshrined in the First Amendment.”

Stickman also found Wolf and Health Secretary Rachel Levine’s stay-at-home orders and business closures, which have since been lifted, to be unconstitutional.

(09-14-2020 01:10 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 01:05 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  What parts?

Quote: In the 66-page ruling, U.S. District Judge William S. Stickman IV found that the Wolf administration’s policy limiting indoor and outdoor gatherings to 25 and 250 people, respectively, violates “the right of assembly enshrined in the First Amendment.”

Stickman also found Wolf and Health Secretary Rachel Levine’s stay-at-home orders and business closures, which have since been lifted, to be unconstitutional.

And, do you agree with the ruling?

Who has the authority to limit rights when they're tasked with the health and welfare of their population? Most experts agreed that large gatherings posed risks to the population, right?

Can you no longer prevent someone from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater now?

(09-14-2020 01:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 01:10 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 01:05 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  What parts?

Quote: In the 66-page ruling, U.S. District Judge William S. Stickman IV found that the Wolf administration’s policy limiting indoor and outdoor gatherings to 25 and 250 people, respectively, violates “the right of assembly enshrined in the First Amendment.”

Stickman also found Wolf and Health Secretary Rachel Levine’s stay-at-home orders and business closures, which have since been lifted, to be unconstitutional.

Who has the authority to limit rights when they're tasked with the health and welfare of their population?

Great question. There is an answer, but you wont like it.

Quote:Most experts agreed that large gatherings posed risks to the population, right?

"Experts" is the wrong answer as to "who has authority to limit my rights."

"The liberties protected by the Constitution are not fair-weather freedoms -- in place when times are good but able to be cast aside in times of trouble," Stickman wrote. "There is no question that this country has faced, and will face, emergencies of every sort. But the solution to a national crisis can never be permitted to supersede the commitment to individual liberty that stands as the foundation of the American experiment. The Constitution cannot accept the concept of a 'new normal' where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures.

"Rather, the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency. Actions taken by defendants crossed those lines. It is the duty of the court to declare those actions unconstitutional."

(09-14-2020 01:10 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 01:05 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  What parts?

Quote: In the 66-page ruling, U.S. District Judge William S. Stickman IV found that the Wolf administration’s policy limiting indoor and outdoor gatherings to 25 and 250 people, respectively, violates “the right of assembly enshrined in the First Amendment.”

Stickman also found Wolf and Health Secretary Rachel Levine’s stay-at-home orders and business closures, which have since been lifted, to be unconstitutional.

Since it applies to the federal constitution, wouldn't this ruling apply to all states?

Yea.. Let me tell you. Penn State is open and not doing what they promised the community they'd do, guess who's suffering, the local kids because they're closing the schools and moving to online learning which is not a good idea because some kids do not have the necessary items needed for online learning

(09-14-2020 12:28 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

Womp! Womp!

That should be worth another 1/2% pt or so toward the unemployment #'s.
Open that ish, en mass, tonight!

(09-14-2020 01:40 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 01:10 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 01:05 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  What parts?

Quote: In the 66-page ruling, U.S. District Judge William S. Stickman IV found that the Wolf administration’s policy limiting indoor and outdoor gatherings to 25 and 250 people, respectively, violates “the right of assembly enshrined in the First Amendment.”

Stickman also found Wolf and Health Secretary Rachel Levine’s stay-at-home orders and business closures, which have since been lifted, to be unconstitutional.

Since it applies to the federal constitution, wouldn't this ruling apply to all states?

At this level it’s persuasive authority but not controlling to other districts.

(09-14-2020 01:30 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 01:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 01:10 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 01:05 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  What parts?

Quote: In the 66-page ruling, U.S. District Judge William S. Stickman IV found that the Wolf administration’s policy limiting indoor and outdoor gatherings to 25 and 250 people, respectively, violates “the right of assembly enshrined in the First Amendment.”

Stickman also found Wolf and Health Secretary Rachel Levine’s stay-at-home orders and business closures, which have since been lifted, to be unconstitutional.

Who has the authority to limit rights when they're tasked with the health and welfare of their population?

Great question. There is an answer, but you wont like it.

Quote:Most experts agreed that large gatherings posed risks to the population, right?

"Experts" is the wrong answer as to "who has authority to limit my rights."

Not only that, but who in this entire debacle has been "expert" about much of this?

(09-14-2020 01:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 01:10 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 01:05 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  What parts?

Quote: In the 66-page ruling, U.S. District Judge William S. Stickman IV found that the Wolf administration’s policy limiting indoor and outdoor gatherings to 25 and 250 people, respectively, violates “the right of assembly enshrined in the First Amendment.”

Stickman also found Wolf and Health Secretary Rachel Levine’s stay-at-home orders and business closures, which have since been lifted, to be unconstitutional.

And, do you agree with the ruling?

Who has the authority to limit rights when they're tasked with the health and welfare of their population? Most experts agreed that large gatherings posed risks to the population, right?

Can you no longer prevent someone from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater now?

i agree with it.

i'm not sure ANYBODY has the authority to unilaterally take away my constitutional rights in the name of health, or safety, or any other reason. ANY restrictions from the clear and plain language of the constitution should be challenged legally and established by the courts... and here the courts said no.

and yes, your right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater has been litigated any number of times, and is established that your right to free speech has limitations. Your right to peacefully assemble likely has some restrictions as well, but not the whims of the governor.

(09-14-2020 01:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 01:10 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 01:05 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  What parts?

Quote: In the 66-page ruling, U.S. District Judge William S. Stickman IV found that the Wolf administration’s policy limiting indoor and outdoor gatherings to 25 and 250 people, respectively, violates “the right of assembly enshrined in the First Amendment.”

Stickman also found Wolf and Health Secretary Rachel Levine’s stay-at-home orders and business closures, which have since been lifted, to be unconstitutional.

And, do you agree with the ruling?

Who has the authority to limit rights when they're tasked with the health and welfare of their population? Most experts agreed that large gatherings posed risks to the population, right?

Can you no longer prevent someone from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater now?

So you subscribe to the theory that the government should make rules about everything you do to prevent anybody from getting hurt anywhere?

Why not publish the risks and let adults decide for themselves? Has nothing to do with yelling fire in a theater, which is legislated as a criminal act.

None of this state government restriction stuff is a law, and is therefore unconstitutional.

(09-14-2020 01:31 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  "The liberties protected by the Constitution are not fair-weather freedoms -- in place when times are good but able to be cast aside in times of trouble," Stickman wrote. "There is no question that this country has faced, and will face, emergencies of every sort. But the solution to a national crisis can never be permitted to supersede the commitment to individual liberty that stands as the foundation of the American experiment. The Constitution cannot accept the concept of a 'new normal' where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures.

"Rather, the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency. Actions taken by defendants crossed those lines. It is the duty of the court to declare those actions unconstitutional."

That statement right there is absolutely beautiful.

Add him to the list of SC candidates

(09-14-2020 03:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 01:31 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  "The liberties protected by the Constitution are not fair-weather freedoms -- in place when times are good but able to be cast aside in times of trouble," Stickman wrote. "There is no question that this country has faced, and will face, emergencies of every sort. But the solution to a national crisis can never be permitted to supersede the commitment to individual liberty that stands as the foundation of the American experiment. The Constitution cannot accept the concept of a 'new normal' where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures.

"Rather, the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency. Actions taken by defendants crossed those lines. It is the duty of the court to declare those actions unconstitutional."

That statement right there is absolutely beautiful.

Here's another good one.

(09-14-2020 12:28 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: