Bill Barr threatens to join lawsuits against stay-home orders

originally posted by: Irishhaf
I will say I HOPE we see some justification on why they choose the cases they send their support to, because I certainly do not support just willy nilly support across the nation, there should be a legitimate reason for them to get involved.

I agree. It's not the job of the feds to micromanage the states (although they don't seem to understand that sometimes).

Given the nature of their involvement, however, their legal involvement demands citing relevant and specific laws and legislations, both original (as in the Constitution and other founding documents) and subsequent (such as codified statutes and court precedents).

Vague and nonspecific arguments just aren't an option for the feds. And if they did provide such nonsense, then I would know they were just going through the motions, and have no real interest in protecting our rights.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: Boadicea

I think my personal issues, beyond being severely allergic to authoritarianism, is that all the measures we are taken dont really seem to address the issues either short term or long term.

I agree. At the very least, they do not address the most important concerns competently or effectively. If there was a genuine concern that hospitals would be overwhelmed and unable to function, then yes, some steps to slow the spread and flatten the curve could be justified. Those steps however, should be laser focused, with minimal -- if any -- violation of rights. Everything else is debatable, including appropriate responses. Our rights are not debatable.

Any and all such measures should also be well defined, justified to the public, with a very clear end goal. If not a specific date or time limit, then specific criteria to meet, such as "14 days of declining hospital admissions."

I agree about the data. The numbers from the start were inherently indicative of cases that required hospitalization. Frankly.. Those numbers aint so hot for any illness.

The numbers we've heard are very scary. I am not sure they are all rightly attributed to CoV however. At the very least, we know there are well known and documented medical issues specific to the treatments being used -- such as ventilators contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and chloroquine's adverse side affects to the heart -- which can be life-threatening in and of themselves.

I really think you illustrate a massively important point with saying "everyone in need of medical care." Regardless of what I perceive to be duplicitousness in the numbers, it seems some areas are well and truly failing their residents.

Definitely! Too many people are not getting the medical care they need, and it seems there are various reasons for this. But for the most part, because all medical resources are being devoted to the most serious CoV patients, those literally on death's door. Others -- like my niece -- with pneumonia are literally told to treat the symptoms, and come back if they start turning blue. People with cancer have had their chemo and radiation treatments cancelled, with no idea when they can resume. People are dying at home -- alone! -- at rates up to 4X normal.

And this seems to be true in hospitals that are full of CoV patients, and hospitals that are quiet and empty and "waiting" for the projected patients.

I honestly cant fathom the stress and pressure on healthcare workers.

I can't imagine either. And it probably varies widely by hospital and region and ever state and country.

Im just finding that shift.. Odd. Folks were lecturing everywhere about how the measures were to flatten the curve, but now.. It seems to be the implication that they are to prevent anyone from getting sick. And, as long as people are getting sick (regardless of hospital occupancy/capability), then they must remain until....?

Yes. And it all seemed to shift (that's a good word for it!) at the same time folks started accusing the dissenters of wanting to kill people... that we needed to just STFU and stay home or we were all murderers. Suddenly, it wasn't the CoV that was the problem, it's us.

And at about the same time, the "flatten the curve" mantra was exchanged for mandatory vaccines and antibody tests before we could ease the restrictions and let people go back to work... let people... Not slowing the spread, but stopping/preventing it totally and completely. Anything less and we're murderers!!!

In other words.. Pursuing this from the legal side might very well help the medical side too.

From your keyboard to God's ears!!! I hope so too... I have heard from a few healthcare people that much of what they are hearing doesn't make any sense... that viruses or hospitals or testing or masks or whatever "doesn't work like that." I'm sure the majority of the healthcare providers would very much like to have better information and guidance, which may well come from a court hearing with genuine facts and evidence.

Thanks for your insights Bo, still feeling better than ever and honing in my regimen

Still have serious, serious issues.. But hey.. A lot of this stuff takes time!

That's good to hear! And yes, so many health issues develop over time and can only be healed over time. But keep seeking knowledge and keep fighting the good fight. You'll get there!

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Serdgiam

Honestly, with this one, my annoyance and outrage over this has less to do with the idea that this was a church service than that these were people parked in their own personal vehicles and not leaving them. Understanding the rules of the game, they posed no risks to each other as they are all in personal, contained spaces. The only possible reason to target them is that you don't like the reason they are parking their cars where they are.

It feels like the cops are there more because whoever is in charge feels this is just too much rebellion against their authority and won't have it.

The question isn't a constitutional question at all. It's, Did this pastor and his congregation violate the "stay at home" and "social distancing" state orders?

There is no religious rights violation, because the orders apply to everyone, churches, graduations, conventions, concerts, plays and sporting event. Religious events aren't being singled out, they're being included.

Bill Barr is just a bloviating, sabre rattling Jabberwocky throwing argle bargle to and fro.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.""

It extends to the States:

""In particular, from the 1920s to the '40s the Supreme Court applied all the clauses of the First Amendment to the states. Thus, the First Amendment now covers actions by federal, state, and local governments.""

😎 🏵️

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What "authority" is given to the States that allows them to discriminate and establish "stay at home" and "social distancing" to only specific people and/or groups ? 🚬 🎯

a reply to: xuenchen

What "authority" is given to the States that allows them to discriminate and establish "stay at home" and "social distancing" to only specific people and/or groups ?

The President's declaration of a National Public Health Emergency does.

The stay at home orders, issued by governors and local state officials, in accordance with the CDC guidelines the Executive Office published are issued in the name of "public health".


Lets say there was a chemical leak, or a dirty bomb, or a group of zombies commies coming your way, and "the government" issued a "Shelter in Place" order for your community.

Was the US Constitution violated or applied?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Everyone was in their car, How was social distancing violated?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Everyone was in their car, How was social distancing violated?

If that's true, they weren't violating social distancing. Isn't it just a matter of a ticket, or some local ordinance violation that can be handled in the local courts, before we invoke the Constitution? Either they violated the "legal order" or they didn't.

I think it's a long way from a Constitutional violation, at this point. Because, either it was always a constitutional violation for everyone, from day one, or it wasn't.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The question isn't a constitutional question at all.

Of course it is. The free exercise of our religion is an enumerated right. As is the right to peaceably assemble. Communion and unity are an integral part of many religions, including Christianity. They chose to respect the social distancing and isolation restrictions, while still being able to freely exercise their right to worship according to the tenets of their faith.

It's, Did this pastor and his congregation violate the "stay at home" and "social distancing" state orders?

It does not matter if they did or not violate the state's "stay at home" and "social distancing" orders if those orders are violating their Constitutional right to worship, and/or their right to peaceably assemble.

But it is known that they made an effort to respect those "orders," and that in fact the officers who cited them forced them to violate those orders.

There is no religious rights violation, because the orders apply to everyone, churches, graduations, conventions, concerts, plays and sporting event.

Religious events aren't being singled out, they're being included.

The right to worship freely and/or peaceably assemble is not about "inclusion." In fact, exactly the opposite, as it affirms and protects the smallest minorities -- including the smallest denomination within a larger religion. You know, just like the Protestants who came to the New World to get away from the brutal domination of the Catholic Church in Europe. The Founding Fathers in general, and Thomas Jefferson in particular, were quite adamant that no one should tell anyone who to worship or how. It was so important, that it is in the first amendment to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Bill Barr is just a bloviating, sabre rattling Jabberwocky throwing argle bargle to and fro.

In fact, I could make the case that he is much worse than that. But that's another thread.

a reply to: Boadicea

The President declared a National Public Health Emergency, and pulled the lever.

Look, if these state level "shut downs" were a constitutional question, Trump is culpable and Bill Barr is about 6 weeks late to the party. Trump is just bored and antsy, like the rest of us. Bill Barr is just argle-bargle-ing because there's not much else he can do.

ETA I get you're upset and don't like this. Nobody does. But, Bill Barr cant save us.

a reply to: Boadicea

All these Uppity States will get a Somber Comeuppance Soon by the Holders of the Purse Stings . Oh , and yes , they Will be Attached .....

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Boadicea

The President declared a National Public Health Emergency, and pulled the lever.

Look, if these state level "shut downs" were a constitutional question...

No "if" about it. You can read. You know it. You just want to justify it because "public health emergency."

...Trump is culpable and Bill Barr is about 6 weeks late to the party.

Yup.

Trump is just bored and antsy, like the rest of us.

More likely, Trump realizes that it's his voters who are screaming the loudest because they do actually care about our rights, and who are most likely to take action if these rights continue to be violated. He knows that if he doesn't at least pay their concerns lip service, he's toast in November.

Bill Barr is just argle-bargle-ing because there's not much else he can do.

More likely, Trump told him to and Barr wants to keep his job.

ETA I get you're upset and don't like this. Nobody does. But, Bill Barr cant save us.

Much like no one can "save us" from CoV no matter how many rights are trampled.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Boadicea

All these Uppity States will get a Somber Comeuppance Soon by the Holders of the Purse Stings . Oh , and yes , they Will be Attached .....

LOL -- indeed! There may be several somber comeuppances.

October and November should be especially interesting this election year. And anything can happen next year, after the new Congress is sworn in.

a reply to: Boadicea


Yes , Unfortunately I am a Libertarian Living in N.J. where Personal Freedoms go to Die .....(

a reply to: Boadicea

No "if" about it. You can read.

Read what? Your replies?

What words and concepts don't you understand?

A Presidential declaration of a Public Health Emergency?

A Presidential declaration of war?
Congressional Acts?
State and local government edicts?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What laws is this covered in ?

Any genuine precedents ?

🍌 🥥

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Of course, it is.

It's been a violation of COTUS from day 1. All the Feds have done is issue guidelines on this. Guidelines aren't laws or mandates. It's the states and localities who have given those guidelines teeth as force of law. What the Fed has used its emergency powers for is to mobilize disaster response and material where needed.

They didn't even lock down NYC. That was all the state of New York and Mayor da Blasio.

And it is discriminatory to decide that a bunch of people sitting in their cars waiting at McD's is practicing proper social distancing while a bunch of people sitting in their cars listening to a radio broadcast sermon is not.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sookiechacha

What laws is this covered in ?

Any genuine precedents ?

🍌 🥥

Every single "shelter in Place" order ever given by local police, mayor, governor, or president.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Where were all those tested in Court ?

🤧 😷

a reply to: ketsuko

It's been a violation of COTUS from day 1.

Apparently not. It's been an application of COTUS since forever!