Bad News Thread

[dad4]

They aren’t ruling on the science. That’s stuff like patent law for which there is a separate bar. This is the implication of rights: what the constitution says. The judges determine the legal principles at stake...if congress doesn’t like it or doesn’t think the science supports a particular ruling they are free to adjust the applicable law or constitutional provision. Judges aren’t supposed to inject their own knowledge into their rulings about things other than the law.

When the court rules whether a specific measure is the “least restrictive” means, they are ruling on which measures do, and do not, achieve the stated goal. That is epidemiology, not law.

When the court put forward a standard of percent occupancy, they asserted that fire code occupancy has some meaningful relation to pandemic risk. And they further asserted that the relationship is so solid it can be used to compare a church to a retail establishment and establish standards for both.

That is not a ruling on rights. That is ruling on the science, and getting it really badly wrong.

A rights ruling would just be to send it back to the public health agency and ask them to rewrite the rule in content neutral terms. (number of people, duration of stay, number of square feet, and so on.)

 

[Grace T.]

When the court rules whether a specific measure is the “least restrictive” means, they are ruling on which measures do, and do not, achieve the stated goal. That is epidemiology, not law.

When the court put forward a standard of percent occupancy, they asserted that fire code occupancy has some meaningful relation to pandemic risk. And they further asserted that the relationship is so solid it can be used to compare a church to a retail establishment and establish standards for both.

That is not a ruling on rights. That is ruling on the science, and getting it really badly wrong.

A rights ruling would just be to send it back to the public health agency and ask them to rewrite the rule in content neutral terms. (number of people, duration of stay, number of square feet, and so on.)

You are misunderstanding the ruling. It’s not their job to say what is most effective against the pandemic. It’s their job to ensure the ruling is content neutral and not discriminatory against religion. That’s not for the health agency to decide. The occupancy limits are only one potential standard. The government is free to advance another....the courts don’t usually go around making their own standards (the brings out the worst complaints from the left or right) but they take those advanced by the parties and experts in the pleadings in front of them. The government was free to put forward an argument that a different standard would pass constitutional muster...it chose not to. What’s worse it created the initial condition by declaring religion nonessential and then bet everything on that rather than adjust. Courts can generally only react to what’s been brought in front of them. Don’t like the ruling? It’s partially due to the hubris of the health experts and d politicians that they weren’t willing to back down from a position they should have known was insupportable

 

[Grace T.]

You are misunderstanding the ruling. It’s not their job to say what is most effective against the pandemic. It’s their job to ensure the ruling is content neutral and not discriminatory against religion. That’s not for the health agency to decide. The occupancy limits are only one potential standard. The government is free to advance another....the courts don’t usually go around making their own standards (the brings out the worst complaints from the left or right) but they take those advanced by the parties and experts in the pleadings in front of them. The government was free to put forward an argument that a different standard would pass constitutional muster...it chose not to. What’s worse it created the initial condition by declaring religion nonessential and then bet everything on that rather than adjust. Courts can generally only react to what’s been brought in front of them. Don’t like the ruling? It’s partially due to the hubris of the health experts and d politicians that they weren’t willing to back down from a position they should have known was insupportable

Ps your complaint is basically “if only we had health experts like fauci making rulings on laws impacting health policy we’d get rulings we like better”

 

[Desert Hound]

Ok here we go with masks again.

Remember the CDC has studies for decades showing they don't work in stopping the spread of influenza.

Over the past year a number of experts have made the point that the virus is very small and that the mask filtration is too large to prevent the virus from going through the mask.

What did Fauci say on the matter?

"Other emails show that in February 2020, Fauci was advising a colleague not to wear face masks, which he said were "not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material."

At some point maybe people will wake up to the fact that the usage of masks was political and not based on science. Why masks? Because the gov wanted to appear to have a solution. Many people also wanted the gov to do something. So you end up with having masks being required in many places despite the guys in charge knowing that the virus is so small that is passes through masks.

'Too Long for Me to Read': Fauci Dismissed Expert's Email About Chinese Disinformation on COVID-19

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the federal bureaucrat who helped bungle the Trump administration's COVID-19 response, appeared to dismiss an expert's detailed warning about Chinese disinformation in the early days of the pandemic, according to emails obtained by the Washington Post.

freebeacon.com

 

[crush]

Ok here we go with masks again.

Remember the CDC has studies for decades showing they don't work in stopping the spread of influenza.

Over the past year a number of experts have made the point that the virus is very small and that the mask filtration is too large to prevent the virus from going through the mask.

What did Fauci say on the matter?

"Other emails show that in February 2020, Fauci was advising a colleague not to wear face masks, which he said were "not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material."

At some point maybe people will wake up to the fact that the usage of masks was political and not based on science. Why masks? Because the gov wanted to appear to have a solution. Many people also wanted the gov to do something. So you end up with having masks being required in many places despite the guys in charge knowing that the virus is so small that is passes through masks.

'Too Long for Me to Read': Fauci Dismissed Expert's Email About Chinese Disinformation on COVID-19

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the federal bureaucrat who helped bungle the Trump administration's COVID-19 response, appeared to dismiss an expert's detailed warning about Chinese disinformation in the early days of the pandemic, according to emails obtained by the Washington Post.

freebeacon.com

 

[dad4]

You are misunderstanding the ruling. It’s not their job to say what is most effective against the pandemic. It’s their job to ensure the ruling is content neutral and not discriminatory against religion. That’s not for the health agency to decide. The occupancy limits are only one potential standard. The government is free to advance another....the courts don’t usually go around making their own standards (the brings out the worst complaints from the left or right) but they take those advanced by the parties and experts in the pleadings in front of them. The government was free to put forward an argument that a different standard would pass constitutional muster...it chose not to. What’s worse it created the initial condition by declaring religion nonessential and then bet everything on that rather than adjust. Courts can generally only react to what’s been brought in front of them. Don’t like the ruling? It’s partially due to the hubris of the health experts and d politicians that they weren’t willing to back down from a position they should have known was insupportable

The effect of the ruling was to gut reasonable health precautions. Churches were in exactly the same group as similar secular activities, like theaters. The only way the court got its ruling was to assert that churches are similar in risk to retail. This goes completely against the science, and you don’t even pretend to defend it.

If you think the court was right to equate risk from retail to risk from theater seating, make your case. But there is none to be made.

 

[dad4]

View attachment 10892

Take you violence-promoting Q-Anon garbage elsewhere. We don’t need another Jan 06.

 

[kickingandscreaming]

You really have to err on the side of freedom, not fear.

We are seeing this now with all the "science" people from 2020 not following the science for those vaccinated in 2021. Many used science to justify their fears. Now all they have are their fears.

 

[kickingandscreaming]

Take you violence-promoting Q-Anon garbage elsewhere. We don’t need another Jan 06.

True. We already have a biased, crusading "free" press, and leaders who believe leadership is lying to us for our own good to promote that purpose.

 

[Desert Hound]

We are seeing this now with all the "science" people from 2020 not following the science for those vaccinated in 2021. Many used science to justify their fears. Now all they have are their fears.

Yep. We are starting to see info coming out that is completely at odds of what we were told.

- The virus is naturally occurring. People who think it is man made or conspiracy hacks. Today? You know what? It seems very plausible it is man made.
- Masks work. Those that say the virus is so small that masks cannot filter them out are CRAZY. And forget our decades of research showing they dont work vs the flu. Today? We read Fauci emailing a colleague telling the person masks are not effective because VIRUSES are much smaller than the filtration provided by your typical mask.
- more and more studies are showing that lockdowns didn't make a difference. Oh well to millions of kids missing school, or all the biz shuttered or people out of work.

When science gets politicized it isn't science any more.

 

[crush]

Take you violence-promoting Q-Anon garbage elsewhere. We don’t need another Jan 06.

You know what DadEspolaEOTL4, you lost big time from all the fraud on your team and big cheaters and when caught with hand in cookie jar and with a mess all over their face, you all still lie. My God, just confess, ask for forgiveness and then do likewise to others. Check this scripture out dude. Words from Christ,
"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

It's amazing to me to see educated people like yourself with multiple degrees taking experimental drugs all of sudden and shooting up Dr. F's and Billy Boy's secret sauce DNA modified BS in their arm. Add Jeff to the mix and you got a deadly cocktail brother. Add the chemical compound of HB+JB x CCP and you got WMD bro. Seriously, do you see wtfigorn? When I was a young lad, I was the one who would like to "experiment" with plant medicine and try stuff out and get others like you Dad to do it with me. Most of the "smart" kids said no. Those same "smart" ones are now pushing experimental drugs on us that actually have killed thousands and wounded hundreds of thousands. That's just today info that is super hard to find on our local and honest news we get here in da states. Dad is pushing experimental drugs on all of us so he can feel safer? WTFITRA?Today, dads like Dad are telling me to shoot experimental drugs in my veins.

 

[crush]

China is getting hit hard. I have a friend who knows a pal of his WHO chases tornados for a living. He said these types seems different and he's a little baffled by all the flooding in China as well. Dams are breaking as I speak. Money is the root of all evil!!!!

 

[Grace T.]

Ok here we go with masks again.

Remember the CDC has studies for decades showing they don't work in stopping the spread of influenza.

Over the past year a number of experts have made the point that the virus is very small and that the mask filtration is too large to prevent the virus from going through the mask.

What did Fauci say on the matter?

"Other emails show that in February 2020, Fauci was advising a colleague not to wear face masks, which he said were "not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material."

At some point maybe people will wake up to the fact that the usage of masks was political and not based on science. Why masks? Because the gov wanted to appear to have a solution. Many people also wanted the gov to do something. So you end up with having masks being required in many places despite the guys in charge knowing that the virus is so small that is passes through masks.

'Too Long for Me to Read': Fauci Dismissed Expert's Email About Chinese Disinformation on COVID-19

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the federal bureaucrat who helped bungle the Trump administration's COVID-19 response, appeared to dismiss an expert's detailed warning about Chinese disinformation in the early days of the pandemic, according to emails obtained by the Washington Post.

freebeacon.com

The effect of the ruling was to gut reasonable health precautions. Churches were in exactly the same group as similar secular activities, like theaters. The only way the court got its ruling was to assert that churches are similar in risk to retail. This goes completely against the science, and you don’t even pretend to defend it.

If you think the court was right to equate risk from retail to risk from theater seating, make your case. But there is none to be made.

no it didn’t. The main core of the Supreme Court rulings has been the govt declared certain businesses essential and religion not. It can’t do that. The govt was free to advance another distinguishing principle (such as level of risk) but it didn’t because they knew that meant shutting down Costco on Saturday afternoon, or even worse, the meat packing plants and factories.

 

[Grace T.]

no it didn’t. The main core of the Supreme Court rulings has been the govt declared certain businesses essential and religion not. It can’t do that. The govt was free to advance another distinguishing principle (such as level of risk) but it didn’t because they knew that meant shutting down Costco on Saturday afternoon, or even worse, the meat packing plants and factories.

It

no it didn’t. The main core of the Supreme Court rulings has been the govt declared certain businesses essential and religion not. It can’t do that. The govt was free to advance another distinguishing principle (such as level of risk) but it didn’t because they knew that meant shutting down Costco on Saturday afternoon, or even worse, the meat packing plants and factories.

Btw we now know because of the incidents in and studies of hotel quaratines that hotels, apartments and condos with indoor hallways are super risky...maybe even more than churches, indoor dining and factories.

 

[crush]

@dad4 Young brave men would lie about their age so they could fight for their country. Now cartoons and little meme's hurt little dads feelings like you. You will go down as the biggest dad loser ever unless you confess to all of us how wrong you and your three headed monster head have been. I will be the first to give you a virtual hug. If you don't confess, well then, you will live with that decision all the way to death bed. Camp Justice is open 24/7 and never closes.

 

[watfly]

I will say this, if given the choice I'd rather have a Judge render an opinion on "science" than a politician.

In other (predictably) bad news:

More San Diego Unified students missed classes, received poor grades during COVID

The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting school closures pulled down grades and increased chronic absenteeism in San Diego Unified schools, according to statistics district leaders revealed this week.Ne…

www.sandiegouniontribune.com

 

[Grace T.]

worse and worse....

The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19’s Origins

Throughout 2020, the notion that the novel coronavirus leaked from a lab was off-limits. Those who dared to push for transparency say toxic politics and hidden agendas kept us in the dark.

www.vanityfair.com

 

[dad4]

no it didn’t. The main core of the Supreme Court rulings has been the govt declared certain businesses essential and religion not. It can’t do that. The govt was free to advance another distinguishing principle (such as level of risk) but it didn’t because they knew that meant shutting down Costco on Saturday afternoon, or even worse, the meat packing plants and factories.

Any defense of the court’s linkage to fire codes?

I find it very hard to see that as reasonable. They are putting forth a scientifically invalid standard which just coincidentally has the effect of greatly increasing the allowable occupancy for the churches which backed Justice Barrett’s confirmation.

So, why did they name fire codes instead of square footage or ventilation?

Simple. Listening to a couple of expert witnesses does not make you a scientist any more than watching Judge Judy makes me a lawyer. The court had no clue what they were proposing. They only knew that it achieved the pro-religion result that Barrett wanted.

 

[Grace T.]

Any defense of the court’s linkage to fire codes?

I find it very hard to see that as reasonable. They are putting forth a scientifically invalid standard which just coincidentally has the effect of greatly increasing the allowable occupancy for the churches which backed Justice Barrett’s confirmation.

So, why did they name fire codes instead of square footage or ventilation?

Simple. Listening to a couple of expert witnesses does not make you a scientist any more than watching Judge Judy makes me a lawyer. The court had no clue what they were proposing. They only knew that it achieved the pro-religion result that Barrett wanted.

They can't go any father than the evidence in front of them. They can't go off willy nilly and go off the record and do their own research. Thats not allowed under the rules of evidence. If the government had wanted a square footage or ventilation standard it could have advanced one. I can guess one of the reasons they didn't: both factories and schools would still be shut.

 

[dad4]

I will say this, if given the choice I'd rather have a Judge render an opinion on "science" than a politician.

In other (predictably) bad news:

More San Diego Unified students missed classes, received poor grades during COVID

The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting school closures pulled down grades and increased chronic absenteeism in San Diego Unified schools, according to statistics district leaders revealed this week.Ne…

www.sandiegouniontribune.com

Politicians did render opinions on the science. One told us it would be over by Easter, and suggested we investigate the merits of injecting disinfectant.

Which proves your point, I suppose.

 

[Grace T.]

They can't go any father than the evidence in front of them. They can't go off willy nilly and go off the record and do their own research. Thats not allowed under the rules of evidence. If the government had wanted a square footage or ventilation standard it could have advanced one. I can guess one of the reasons they didn't: both factories and schools would still be shut.

Oh and BTW, once you take into account the entry hall, various levels, pastor's office, nursery, reception hall, chapel, corridors, and steeple, my church is probably open (as well as my old Catholic church) with a restricted no. per worship if square footage is the test. It's certainly larger than a costco when that's taken into account.