Bad News Thread

The most idiotic thing about this is remember they told us if places adopted mask ordinances such lockdowns wouldn't be necessary. They even said masks were better than vaccines. The city of LA has had mask mandate 7 months going on 8.

They might have made walking your dog illegal. ^\_(;?)_/^
 
No, it's not.
SCOTUS was clear you can’t limit indoor worship (ie outdoor only) if you are going to treat this laundry list of things as essential. They could do % ties like the other businesses but this is black letter exactly what they were talking about and unconstitutional
 
If you are not going to finish the argument, perhaps you shouldn't start it.

why would I care enough? That implies I actually care to fix him. I don’t. Of all the people here I don’t. To be honest I’d care more about either you (you occasionally make some good points) or eotl (respect)
 
SCOTUS was clear you can’t limit indoor worship (ie outdoor only) if you are going to treat this laundry list of things as essential. They could do % ties like the other businesses but this is black letter exactly what they were talking about and unconstitutional

Your objection is noted.
 
This is the most hilarious stay at home order that's just been issued for the city of Los Angeles. It prohibits, under penalty of misdeamenor, leaving your house or traveling by foot, bike, public transport, car or scooter. It then exempts the homeless. It then exempts a long line of business activities. Such business activities include hard ware stores, piercing shops, tanning shops, dog groomers, tattoo parlors, bike repair shops, taxis, and retail shops (at reduced capapcity) It exempts outdoor worship (which is now clearly unconstitutional since this is the very scenario addressed in the SCOTUS case...they could have done a percentage cap but chose to ignore it). It pretty much keeps the outdoor recreation sites open with a handful of tweaks here and there (sorry water poloers). Of course film and TV production remain open. Zoos are o.k. Pro sports and day camps still allowed. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Basically it's a plea to do the one thing they can't control: private socialization....and it takes them pages to do it. History might very well record this as one of the most ludicrous documents to emerge from the pandemic. Make sure to tell your kids they can't go outside scooting in the city of LA...they might get charged with a misdemeanor.


To enhance the effectiveness of the message, they should deliver it in email form to all constituents from a Nigerian Prince asking for their help. That works every time.
 
1. It was in NY,

2. The SCOTUS text includes "single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment." That doesn't apply here.

Errrr. Common law operates on the basis of precedents. Precedents can operate as black letter, analogy or persuasive. This is black letter....exactly the same situation with a laundry list of exceptions but not for houses of worship which is nonessential. To enforce a house of worship would have to sue. The lower court is bound to uphold the precedent. If they don’t it’s reversible error that will be overturned by a higher court.

If I were going to make the argument to distinguish id make the especially harsh treatment language you cited. Your understanding is basic but you missed your calling (shoulda been a lawyer...it takes a certain not normal personality as well...you might a been gifted). NY was caught making a lot of harsh statements. But the pc doesn’t rest on that. Another argument might be widespread access to outdoor services but unless la city is handing out park permits for these that’s pretty hard to argue too.
 
Errrr. Common law operates on the basis of precedents. Precedents can operate as black letter, analogy or persuasive. This is black letter....exactly the same situation with a laundry list of exceptions but not for houses of worship which is nonessential. To enforce a house of worship would have to sue. The lower court is bound to uphold the precedent. If they don’t it’s reversible error that will be overturned by a higher court.

If I were going to make the argument to distinguish id make the especially harsh treatment language you cited. Your understanding is basic but you missed your calling (shoulda been a lawyer...it takes a certain not normal personality as well...you might a been gifted). NY was caught making a lot of harsh statements. But the pc doesn’t rest on that. Another argument might be widespread access to outdoor services but unless la city is handing out park permits for these that’s pretty hard to argue too.

You can ignore the differences for the sake of argument, but that won't make them go away.
 
I'd prefer they fix the projections, but every time team reality has attempted to do that they've been attacked as heretics. Building government policy time after time on bad projections is not good governance. So yes, given the choices we're left with, I'd prefer we made policy without the use of projections. I know...I know...shocking and inconceivable to a math teacher divorced from practical applications in the real world. Bad math is worse than no math.
One needs to acknowledge what criteria the projections were based on to get a realistic analysis. Making up ones own criteria to judge the projections on is simply spin.
 
You can ignore the differences for the sake of argument, but that won't make them go away.
That’s not how these things operate legally. It’s almost the exact situation. Since it was a pc if it wasn’t nearly identical this argument would be persuasive but it wasn’t. The only real differences are: 1. A lack of negative statements re worship, 2. Dining is closed and 3. Protests outside are subject to social distancing rules (which if the government doesnt enforce or give worship equal access will cause other problem). It’s why the county order is different
 
This is the most hilarious stay at home order that's just been issued for the city of Los Angeles. It prohibits, under penalty of misdeamenor, leaving your house or traveling by foot, bike, public transport, car or scooter. It then exempts the homeless. It then exempts a long line of business activities. Such business activities include hard ware stores, piercing shops, tanning shops, dog groomers, tattoo parlors, bike repair shops, taxis, and retail shops (at reduced capapcity) It exempts outdoor worship (which is now clearly unconstitutional since this is the very scenario addressed in the SCOTUS case...they could have done a percentage cap but chose to ignore it). It pretty much keeps the outdoor recreation sites open with a handful of tweaks here and there (sorry water poloers). Of course film and TV production remain open. Zoos are o.k. Pro sports and day camps still allowed. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Basically it's a plea to do the one thing they can't control: private socialization....and it takes them pages to do it. History might very well record this as one of the most ludicrous documents to emerge from the pandemic. Make sure to tell your kids they can't go outside scooting in the city of LA...they might get charged with a misdemeanor.


Webster's word of the year is "pandemic". California's word of the year should be "arbitrary".

My daughter's dance studio served with a cease and desist and closed. Strip clubs open.
 
That’s not how these things operate legally. It’s almost the exact situation. Since it was a pc if it wasn’t nearly identical this argument would be persuasive but it wasn’t. The only real differences are: 1. A lack of negative statements re worship, 2. Dining is closed and 3. Protests outside are subject to social distancing rules (which if the government doesnt enforce or give worship equal access will cause other problem). It’s why the county order is different

In order to use the NY SCOTUS decision as precedent, one must show that the two situations are equivalent. Just because both mention churches is not enough.
 
Webster's word of the year is "pandemic". California's word of the year should be "arbitrary".

My daughter's dance studio served with a cease and desist and closed. Strip clubs open.
Strip clubs are not dance establishments. They are bars which happen to have naked women exercising their first amendment right to free speech.

I agree that strips clubs should be closed, but you can’t do that without also closing the rest of the bars.

If the strip clubs are open but banned from serving food and drink, then it gets more interesting.
 
Texas and California have almost identical per cap curves despite different gov policies


Meanwhile here's the vaccination cards that will be issued. Hope they don't expect people to keep those somewhere safe to board a bus or go in a store. Most people can't even hold onto their Starbucks reward cards. After a few days in my purse that thing is trashed. Shouldn't there be an app for tha?

 
They are bars which happen to have naked women exercising their first amendment right to free speech.
Well they got a judge to believe that but c'mon now. Explain to me how my daughter dancing (for no compensation) is not free speech and a nude dancer (for compensation) is free speech. Actually don't explain, my mind is numb already.

Furthermore, your wrong on the bar part. Full nude establishments are prohibited from selling alcohol and typically don't serve food, or so I was told :) .

Again, arbitrary and discriminatory despite your mental gymnastic machinations.
 
Back
Top