Pa Judges rules limits on gatherings Unconstitutional

[WillJ8787]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...al-federal-court-20200914.html?outputType=amp


Looks like it's back to normal in PA. No legal consequences for gather sizes.

Whoop, whoop time to have a party and pass the covid to the left hand side!!!





I don't blame the Judge....he is just going by the law and this will have huge consequences!

 

[FescueFan]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...al-federal-court-20200914.html?outputType=amp


Looks like it's back to normal in PA. No legal consequences for gather sizes.

Whoop, whoop time to have a party and pass the covid to the left hand side!!!





I don't blame the Judge....he is just going by the law and this will have huge consequences!

Oh wow a judge with enough spine to uphold the law and respect 1A rights, clearly not a Democrat!!

 

[WillJ8787]

You have another clear misunderstanding of the judiciary and how govt works.


....Judges rule on law and the case before them.

...they are neither Rep. or Dem. Or any other party when ruling.

...I'm left progressive and I understand and accept the ruling.

...it presents consequences for public health regarding covid and other public health and safety issues.

My question to you Grass fan...what number of deaths from covid would change your mind? At what number does the Constitution become less important than loss of life?

 

[Rightguide]

You have another clear misunderstanding of the judiciary and how govt works.


....Judges rule on law and the case before them.

...they are neither Rep. or Dem. Or any other party when ruling.

...I'm left progressive and I understand and accept the ruling.

...it presents consequences for public health regarding covid and other public health and safety issues.

My question to you Grass fan...what number of deaths from covid would change your mind? At what number does the Constitution become less important than loss of life?

Read the judge's opinion. There are limits to governmental power even in an emergency. No American government can operate outside the limits of the Constitution.

 

[FescueFan]

...they are neither Rep. or Dem. Or any other party when ruling.

So then NO WORRIES about Trump appointing any more justices right???

That must be why so many judges are so blatantly partisan.....and a "progressive" judge is not going to view 2A the same way as a liberal judge or justice would. That much has been made abundantly clear.

LOL.....like it or not ideology shapes viewpoints and perspectives, and judges are human.

...I'm left progressive and I understand and accept the ruling.

Not very progressive of you supporting that alt-reich liberal bullshit.

My question to you Grass fan...what number of deaths from covid would change your mind?

It's not a number it's a rationality.

Is the infringement on the civil right effective at controlling the spread of disease? Can it be implemented with a reasonable expectation of NOT causing more damage than the disease?

If the answer to either of those questions is no? Then I can't get behind going any further with any civil rights violations for the sake of a public health emergency.

At what number does the Constitution become less important than loss of life?

That is for the states or congress to decide.....

As a person who has been ready to die and kill for those rights since I was still a kid it would have to be an awfully high death rate....worse than anything humanity has ever endured. It would have to be a survival of the species level issue before I abandoned my principals, and they sure as fuck wouldn't be to a power grab by a bunch of elitist scum looking to enslave me like the "progressives" desperately wish they could.

 

[WillJ8787]

Read the judge's opinion. There are limits to governmental power even in an emergency. No American government can operate outside the limits of the Constitution.

I agree with your first sentence.

Your second isn't correct... exceptions exist and would be used by any political persuasion if they deemed it necessary. The Constitution was created to allow for exceptions.

Can you name one?

 

[WillJ8787]

So then NO WORRIES about Trump appointing any more justices right???

That must be why so many judges are so blatantly partisan.....and a "progressive" judge is not going to view 2A the same way as a liberal judge or justice would. That much has been made abundantly clear.

LOL.....like it or not ideology shapes viewpoints and perspectives, and judges are human.



Not very progressive of you supporting that alt-reich liberal bullshit.



It's not a number it's a rationality.

Is the infringement on the civil right effective at controlling the spread of disease? Can it be implemented with a reasonable expectation of NOT causing more damage than the disease?

If the answer to either of those questions is no? Then I can't get behind going any further with any civil rights violations for the sake of a public health emergency.



That is for the states or congress to decide.....

As a person who has been ready to die and kill for those rights since I was still a kid it would have to be an awfully high death rate....worse than anything humanity has ever endured. It would have to be a survival of the species level issue before I abandoned my principals, and they sure as fuck wouldn't be to a power grab by a bunch of elitist scum looking to enslave me like the "progressives" desperately wish they could.

No, I don't have concerns over the Scotus appointment. History bears out these appointments to be a-political over the long run.

I'm asking a simple question...what number of deaths? Sounds like your saying it would have to be cataclysmic?

Doesn't that imply a crisis that would put the Constitution at risk? As a secondary affect of the cataclism?

 

[WillJ8787]

Grass fan?

"LOL.....like it or not ideology shapes viewpoints and perspectives, and judges are human."

Your description of judges above is correct except that judges are trained, via years of elite education, to focus on the law and the case before them and to put aside what you have said above.

You also seem to be saying, your more pure than they...when it comes to the Constitution?

 

[Rightguide]

I agree with your first sentence.

Your second isn't correct... exceptions exist and would be used by any political persuasion if they deemed it necessary. The Constitution was created to allow for exceptions.

Can you name one?

No, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Exceptions to it can only be made by amendment. Congress can pass no law that violates the Constitution. Your ignorance of that fact is shameful:

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. "
Marbury vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda vs Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Norton vs Shelby County118 US 425 p.442

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177, late 2nd, Section 256

 

[WillJ8787]

Just to clarify Mr. Right Guide...

There are no exceptions and you cannot state any that you know of? Hmmm?

 

[Rightguide]

Just to clarify Mr. Right Guide...

There are no exceptions and you cannot state any that you know of? Hmmm?

I just stated the law of the land. I'm not saying it can't be illegally violated, as those decisions I posted just testified to.

 

[FescueFan]

Your description of judges above is correct except that judges are trained, via years of elite education, to focus on the law and the case before them and to put aside what you have said above.

So then Trump appointing a justice/judges is NO biggie then right??

ACB's staunchly conservative and Catholic background won't shape her legal opinions AT ALL right???

I disagree, I think judges are human and their views on the law are shaped by their ideals/values just like everyone else. The wide array of opinions, rulings and noticeable lack of unanimous ones is compelling that despite their best efforts even the most honest judges views of the law lean one way or the other based on who they are.

You also seem to be saying, your more pure than they...when it comes to the Constitution?

No, that's entirely you reading that into the situation.

I'm affected by my set of political/ideological values as they are theirs.

I do however believe that since the Constitution was written, and the USA founded by a bunch of radically liberal Englishmen, with the political value set commonly referred to today as "Classical English Liberalism" or "Classical Western Liberalism" that liberal (of some kind) views do keep with the spirit and values of the USA, unlike those out there who come from and or support more authoritarian political value sets.

 

[WillJ8787]

I just stated the law of the land. I'm not saying it can't be illegally violated, as those decisions I posted just testified to.

Good point..examples of illegality.

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/612532/
...I could cite hundreds of sources for this if you want...one is enough for now though.

Examples of legal exceptions

https://constitutioncenter.org/inte...wers-and-issues-during-a-quarantine-situation

I can cite more of this as well and other areas of exceptions.

Comments? Hmmm?

 

[WillJ8787]

So then Trump appointing a justice/judges is NO biggie then right??

I disagree, I think judges are human and their views on the law are shaped by their ideals/values just like everyone else. The wide array of opinions, rulings and noticeable lack of unanimous ones is compelling that despite their best efforts even the most honest judges views of the law lean one way or the other based on who they are.





No, that's entirely you reading that into the situation.

I'm affected by my set of political/ideological values as they are theirs.

I do however believe that since the Constitution was written, and the USA founded by a bunch of radically liberal Englishmen, with the political value set commonly referred to today as "Classical English Liberalism" or "Classical Western Liberalism" that liberal (of some kind) views do keep with the spirit and values of the USA, unlike those out there who come from and or support more authoritarian political value sets.

So, you are saying you are willing to die for the Constitution, though it is a radical liberal document written by radically liberal Englishman?

 

[Rightguide]

Good point..examples of illegality.

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/612532/
...I could cite hundreds of sources for this if you want...one is enough for now though.

Examples of legal exceptions

https://constitutioncenter.org/inte...wers-and-issues-during-a-quarantine-situation

I can cite more of this as well and other areas of exceptions.

Comments? Hmmm?

I posted the law through legal rulings. You are posting political articles citing federal quarantine laws which haven't been ruled on in federal courts. You just saw an example in Pennsylvania of happens when legislators assume legal authorities they don't have and they arrive in court, they are declared null and void.

 

[WillJ8787]

Yes, I am fairly certain quarantine rules coming from Gov. Wolf, Mayor Kenny are probably Unconstitutional as was Trump's removal of Protestors in D.C.

These cases are in play at the moment.

My point is you have supported Trump's removal of Protestors as has Grassfan...hmmm?

You have supported selectively, on a partisan bases, Unconstitutional activities which you then turn around and say are the law of the land and should be upheld. Hmmm?

 

[FescueFan]

So, you are saying you are willing to die for the Constitution, though it is a radical liberal document written by radically liberal Englishman?

https://media1.giphy.com/media/3oFzmkkwfOGlzZ0gxi/200.gif


Remember, ACTUAL liberal....

Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism

Not the bastardized by the left who used the banner "liberal" to try and hide the fact that they aren't very liberal at all for as long as possible.

You guys now call yourself "progressive" LOL just as laughable, backwards and inside out.

 

[FescueFan]

My point is you have supported Trump's removal of Protestors as has Grassfan...hmmm?

When did I ever do that?

You have supported selectively, on a partisan bases, Unconstitutional activities which you then turn around and say are the law of the land and should be upheld. Hmmm?

What unconstitutional activities have I supported?

 

[Rightguide]

You have supported selectively, on a partisan bases, Unconstitutional activities which you then turn around and say are the law of the land and should be upheld. Hmmm?

Show me. What unconstitutional activities have I supported?

Once a riot or demonstration is deemed an unlawful assembly, ie violent. It is the duty of law enforcement and the President if necessary to put it down and clear the streets.

 

[WillJ8787]

Show me. What unconstitutional activities have I supported?

Once a riot or demonstration is deemed an unlawful assembly, ie violent. It is the duty of law enforcement and the President if necessary to put it down and clear the streets.

The one involving Trump...non-violently and definitely no judicial ruling anywhere that it was anything other.

 

[Rightguide]

The one involving Trump...non-violently and definitely no judicial ruling anywhere that it was anything other.

Which one? What unconstitutional action did I support? Specifically.

 

[WillJ8787]

Grassfan...when you talk with folks and they say you said something, and you keep saying no I didn't....that is a sign.

When this keeps happening over and over...it is a sign.

Please get yourself checked out by a therapist. It's your life dude

 

[Rightguide]

Grassfan...when you talk with folks and they say you said something, and you keep saying no I didn't....that is a sign.

When this keeps happening over and over...it is a sign.

Please get yourself checked out by a therapist. It's your life dude

When you cannot produce a factual source or post, that's a sign too.

 

[WillJ8787]

Patience is a virtue...
Also, don't ever ask a question you don't already have an answer to...

 

[WillJ8787]

"These are not protestors. They are domestic terrorists. We need to turn the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces loose on them. We should arrest all of them and their financiers. Put their faces on wanted posters in every post office in America."

These are your words Right Guide.

Whether it's Black Lives Matters, KKK, or Mother's Against Drunk Drivers.

They have a Constitution right to protest.

Whether you like it or not.


You've decided, without a Judge or Jury or impartial thinking.
The words in quotes are yours....shall I cite you more? Hmmm?