(09-14-2020 03:02 PM)Oman 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.

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.

I agree with it as well.

Unless you are declaring a state of emergency and martial law, these actions don’t stand up well to constitutional muster.

(09-14-2020 05:42 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 03:02 PM)Oman 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.

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.

I agree with it as well.

Unless you are declaring a state of emergency and martial law, these actions don’t stand up well to constitutional muster.

I think most of these governors did declare a state of emergency which they believe gives them unilateral powers. This PA judge give them a clear no on that. Balance of power is a beautiful thing

The problem here in Michigan is her powers were set to expire after a month, and then she kept/is still extending them. We haven't had a Legislative branch having a say in the Covid response ever. It's been all the governor & her direct advisors.

I can accept the Consitituion giving the governor a broad set of powers in a state of emergency for a limited time. I can't accept the Consitituion allows governors to decide whenever & however they want to be done with their powers.

Not sure how PA is set up. But if it was like the MI case, this ruling should've addressed that.

(09-14-2020 05:50 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 05:42 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 03:02 PM)Oman Wrote:  

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

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

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.

I agree with it as well.

Unless you are declaring a state of emergency and martial law, these actions don’t stand up well to constitutional muster.

I think most of these governors did declare a state of emergency which they believe gives them unilateral powers. This PA judge give them a clear no on that. Balance of power is a beautiful thing

I know in one state (don't remember which one), the state of emergency only lasts for 30 days unless extended by the legislature. The legislature refused, but the governor kept restrictions in place.

(09-14-2020 06:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 05:50 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 05:42 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 03:02 PM)Oman Wrote:  

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

I agree with it as well.

Unless you are declaring a state of emergency and martial law, these actions don’t stand up well to constitutional muster.

I think most of these governors did declare a state of emergency which they believe gives them unilateral powers. This PA judge give them a clear no on that. Balance of power is a beautiful thing

I know in one state (don't remember which one), the state of emergency only lasts for 30 days unless extended by the legislature. The legislature refused, but the governor kept restrictions in place.

Should have been drug out of office

(09-14-2020 06:22 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 06:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 05:50 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 05:42 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 03:02 PM)Oman Wrote:  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.

I agree with it as well.

Unless you are declaring a state of emergency and martial law, these actions don’t stand up well to constitutional muster.

I think most of these governors did declare a state of emergency which they believe gives them unilateral powers. This PA judge give them a clear no on that. Balance of power is a beautiful thing

I know in one state (don't remember which one), the state of emergency only lasts for 30 days unless extended by the legislature. The legislature refused, but the governor kept restrictions in place.

Should have been drug out of office

Sounds like Michigan. I think she's on executive order 48,000 by now.

(09-14-2020 03:02 PM)Oman 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.

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.

So, public safety on the advice of health care professionals are whims?

(09-14-2020 03:04 PM)TripleA 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.

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.

Because this is a pandemic with asymptomatic spread.

(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?

Im on the fence. While I totally see the judges thought process...I agree that public health concerns are valid also. This is the problem with "one size fits all" government solutions. Im sure there are establishments capable of keeping people safe over the 25 limit and for sure there is NO reason why outdoor sporting events cant be held that have over 250 properly spaced for distancing. A football stadium that holds 50k could easily set 15-20k safely. There should be some level of common sense involved but it is easier just throw out mandates and make those that can handle the larger numbers suffer. Im afraid this is where we are until we get a vaccine.

It's called a "dictate". So. Perfectly fine to eat 4 double cheeseburgers three times a day but have to wear a mask to go in the burger king to buy them. Full retard.

(09-14-2020 06:54 PM)Fo Shizzle 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.

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?

Im on the fence. While I totally see the judges thought process...I agree that public health concerns are valid also. This is the problem with "one size fits all" government solutions. Im sure there are establishments capable of keeping people safe over the 25 limit and for sure there is NO reason why outdoor sporting events cant be held that have over 250 properly spaced for distancing. A football stadium that holds 50k could easily set 15-20k safely. There should be some level of common sense involved but it is easier just throw out mandates and make those that can handle the larger numbers suffer. Im afraid this is where we are until we get a vaccine.

The problem is it is all at the governors choice. They are not kings/queens and should not have that authority.

At some point the legislature needs to have a say.

(09-14-2020 07:10 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  It's called a "dictate". So. Perfectly fine to eat 4 double cheeseburgers three times a day but have to wear a mask to go in the burger king to buy them. Full retard.

Right?

(09-14-2020 06:54 PM)Fo Shizzle 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.

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?

Im on the fence. While I totally see the judges thought process...I agree that public health concerns are valid also. This is the problem with "one size fits all" government solutions. Im sure there are establishments capable of keeping people safe over the 25 limit and for sure there is NO reason why outdoor sporting events cant be held that have over 250 properly spaced for distancing. A football stadium that holds 50k could easily set 15-20k safely. There should be some level of common sense involved but it is easier just throw out mandates and make those that can handle the larger numbers suffer. Im afraid this is where we are until we get a vaccine.

I mostly with you there. Sure seems like we could allow a few thousand people into sporting events, etc. But the problem is the public in general. We're pretty stupid. Just look at any interview of them at a political rally...and their party affiliation matters not.

(09-14-2020 06:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 03:04 PM)TripleA 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.

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.

Because this is a pandemic with asymptomatic spread.

So we're told... by the medical [cough] experts that haven't been close on anything they've said to date.

I was told on March 12th that there were 1% of the population in Ohio were walking around infecting others.

This was after I had just been in a jam packed gym of 2500 people at a basketball game on March 7th where there should have been 25 of those "asymptomatic carriers" spreading that crap like wildfire, right?

Nobody caught a thing. I don't buy it.

I think the constitution was designed to give people what I will call "hey, wait a minute" power against the government. I think that the writers knew that governments have a habit of telling people what it wants them to believe.

If this thing had been what we've been told it was, don't worry, I wouldn't need the government to lock me down. I guess the issue here is who is qualified to make your decisions for you... you... or the government.

I'll make my own decisions, thank you.

(09-15-2020 06:11 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 06:54 PM)Fo Shizzle 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.

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?

Im on the fence. While I totally see the judges thought process...I agree that public health concerns are valid also. This is the problem with "one size fits all" government solutions. Im sure there are establishments capable of keeping people safe over the 25 limit and for sure there is NO reason why outdoor sporting events cant be held that have over 250 properly spaced for distancing. A football stadium that holds 50k could easily set 15-20k safely. There should be some level of common sense involved but it is easier just throw out mandates and make those that can handle the larger numbers suffer. Im afraid this is where we are until we get a vaccine.

I mostly with you there. Sure seems like we could allow a few thousand people into sporting events, etc. But the problem is the public in general. We're pretty stupid. Just look at any interview of them at a political rally...and their party affiliation matters not.

Here is the thing... in this country, the people decide, whether you think they are stupid or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(09-15-2020 06:29 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 06:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 03:04 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

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

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

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.

Because this is a pandemic with asymptomatic spread.

So we're told... by the medical [cough] experts that haven't been close on anything they've said to date.

I was told on March 12th that there were 1% of the population in Ohio were walking around infecting others.

This was after I had just been in a jam packed gym of 2500 people at a basketball game on March 7th where there should have been 25 of those "asymptomatic carriers" spreading that crap like wildfire, right?

Nobody caught a thing. I don't buy it.

I think the constitution was designed to give people what I will call "hey, wait a minute" power against the government. I think that the writers knew that governments have a habit of telling people what it wants them to believe.

If this thing had been what we've been told it was, don't worry, I wouldn't need the government to lock me down. I guess the issue here is who is qualified to make your decisions for you... you... or the government.

I'll make my own decisions, thank you.

Thing is we didn’t know. The Chinese propaganda machine was sending us videos of mass populations of people spontaneously dropping dead in the streets and literally piling up in hospital waiting areas and hallways. I think the initial lockdowns were fine, but by Easter we knew we weren’t dealing with the Black Death. I don’t believe any edict has done a darned thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(09-14-2020 06:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 06:22 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 06:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 05:50 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 05:42 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I agree with it as well.

Unless you are declaring a state of emergency and martial law, these actions don’t stand up well to constitutional muster.

I think most of these governors did declare a state of emergency which they believe gives them unilateral powers. This PA judge give them a clear no on that. Balance of power is a beautiful thing

I know in one state (don't remember which one), the state of emergency only lasts for 30 days unless extended by the legislature. The legislature refused, but the governor kept restrictions in place.

Should have been drug out of office

Sounds like Michigan. I think she's on executive order 48,000 by now.

It’s in the 170’s. She’s a crazy *****.

She’s like that old janitor from Harry Potter who climbs that huge rikkety ladder to keep nailing new school rules to the castle wall.

(09-15-2020 07:13 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 06:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 06:22 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 06:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 05:50 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  I think most of these governors did declare a state of emergency which they believe gives them unilateral powers. This PA judge give them a clear no on that. Balance of power is a beautiful thing

I know in one state (don't remember which one), the state of emergency only lasts for 30 days unless extended by the legislature. The legislature refused, but the governor kept restrictions in place.

Should have been drug out of office

Sounds like Michigan. I think she's on executive order 48,000 by now.

It’s in the 170’s. She’s a crazy *****.

She’s like that old janitor from Harry Potter who climbs that huge rikkety ladder to keep nailing new school rules to the castle wall.

Just for the Kung flu? Unreal.

In her six years as governor of South Carolina Nikki Haley issued 208 total executive orders despite dealing with multiple hurricanes, a major wildfire, numerous winter weather events, and Biblical flooding during her term.

Just since March of 2020 to deal with Covid.

She has so many and so many double back on others in contradictory manners that the prosecutor in my county stated in an article that he can’t enforce any of them because nobody can figure out what still applies.

(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?

You're such a cuck.