(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?

Yep, the whole "x" number of people being prohibited thing was proven bogus after the protests and funeral(s) for state reps.

(09-15-2020 10:25 AM)VA49er 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?

Yep, the whole "x" number of people being prohibited thing was proven bogus after the protests and funeral(s) for state reps.

The irony is the coronabro shutdown crowd are in fact yelling fire in a theater and their media cohorts exist solely to generate panic.

(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.

Um, IL.

I hate being here!!

30 days in MI and it wasn’t renewed...Queen Gretchen is relying upon a 1945 MI law regarding war and civil unrest that doesn’t mention public health as her authority to take over the legislative branch. Reason why there are several lawsuits pending in various courts.

(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?

Tom the second..... no, the NanoSecond after it was declared that rioting and looting - er I mean peaceful protesting was OK - ALL gatherings immediately became OK.....

John Lewis dies and has 7 packed services with people on top of each other outside in three states but no one else can have a service for their loved ones except for a small private service. Nuff said.

Or when Tom Wolf marched with BLM in PA kinda blew that out of the water too