11–20 of 604 posts
The Republicans who brought the lawsuit argue that, in part, continuing the lock down isn't appropriate because deaths from covid19 are going down. They don't connect the declining deaths to being locked down. You would think they would notice.
What we should do is one thing. Saying the government can make us do it is something else entirely.
What we should do is one thing. Saying the government can make us do it is something else entirely.
What we should do is one thing. Saying the government can make us do it is something else entirely.
There's a couple centuries of common law precedent that the government can compel behavior for public health crises. The state supreme court here grossly violated legal precedent, and will have its ass overturned in a heartbeat if anyone has the time, resources, and will to escalate.
This is a fairly narrow decision, it only says the legislative must be involved into this.
Alas it did not address the question I had hoped it would - do sheltering rules violate the Bill of Rights?
The Republicans who brought the lawsuit argue that, in part, continuing the lock down isn't appropriate because deaths from covid19 are going down. They don't connect the declining deaths to being locked down. You would think they would notice.
Can I get some more down votes, please? This isn't absurd enough yet. You'd have to be a buffoon to not take safety for yourself and others seriously. That being said, it's about time people in positions of power woke-up and smelled the Constitution. Downvote me all you want, it doesn't make you right: "An agency cannot confer on itself the power to dictate the lives of law-abiding individuals as comprehensively as t…
What constitution do you feel they need to be paying attention to?
I have a suspicion that you're thinking of one thing and they were ruling on another.
What we should do is one thing. Saying the government can make us do it is something else entirely.
When our actions can harm others, the government absolutely has the right—and the obligation—to step in.
What we should do is one thing. Saying the government can make us do it is something else entirely.
When our actions can harm others, the government absolutely has the right—and the obligation—to step in.
Can you be more specific? It's the nebulousness of what "can harm" that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Taken to one extreme, there's almost nothing you can do that doesn't potentially harm others. For example, I could leave my stove burner on and burn down the entire apartment building. So many things come with risks to others, and those things are just part of existing in society.
The Republicans who brought the lawsuit argue that, in part, continuing the lock down isn't appropriate because deaths from covid19 are going down. They don't connect the declining deaths to being locked down. You would think they would notice.