Yes, but as Australia has shown the tradeoff if you want to try and be virus-free like Australia is you need to do it repeatedly and sometimes it still takes a long time anyways (100+ days)
Bad News Thread
- Thread starter kickingandscreaming
- Start date
Yes, but as Australia has shown the tradeoff if you want to try and be virus-free like Australia is you need to do it repeatedly and sometimes it still takes a long time anyways (100+ days)
Dad4 made a comment a number of pages back to the effect that "Courts are how we hold people accountable". This mentality is why California is such a litigious state. I personally believe courts are the venue of last resort for holding people accountable. Nevertheless, Newsom has been held accountable for his unlawful Covid restrictions time and time again. Here is the latest:
Pasadena Church Prevails in Lawsuit Against Newsom Over Restrictions
A California District Court entered an order this week approving Liberty Counsel's settlement of a lawsuit on behalf of Pasadena's Harvest Rock Church and Harvest International Ministry against California Governor Gavin Newsom and his COVID-19 restrictions.www.newsweek.com
This wasn't just a loss for Newsom, when you have to pay the other sides attorneys' fees, that's an ass kicking. (and this considering churches were a known source of spread in some cases.) Just add to it the court overruled restrictions on restaurants, strip clubs, youth sports etc.
Whether Dad4's proposed restrictions for Covid, which as best I can tell sounds like Newsom restrictions on steroids, would work, or not, is a moot point since many of Newsom's restrictions were deemed unlawful.
(On a macro level an appellate court deemed Newsom had power under the Emergency Act to amend state law or policy, but on a case-by-case basis those restrictions that were challenged were nearly all determined to be unlawful by the Court.)
Santa Clara’s church restrictions held up. They did not mention religion, and focused on things like number of people, size of facility, and time spent.
May just be a case where it matters how you write the rule.
Possibly, but Newsom agreed to the settlement. Plus Newsom lost at the US Supreme Court as well. I haven't read the Judges' ruling, but I suspect its more a matter of substance, and not semantics.
Your link says that capacity limits and bans on singing are fine. The semantics matter.
Not sure how the court got to 25% as an acceptable capacity limit. Perhaps Mr. Kavanaugh thinks he is an epidemiologist and was reading through air flow studies.
Yes, this. The Supreme Court decisions all seem to center around if religion is singled out for different treatment. If it's a neutral occupancy limit that seems to hold up.
Thought that was curious as well. Based on the settlement, it seems that if Newsom wanted to limit Church to 25% (if he could even still do that) he would have to do the same with grocery stores, big box stores etc. We can parse words here, but the reality is Newsom is getting spanked repeatedly by the Courts on just about every front.
Desert Hound
DA
You pop every now and then I think to remind us that the world is full of not too bright people.
Seat belts and helmets, etc have decades of research showing they work.
With masks we have decades of research showing they are ineffective vs influenza type viruses. And as the covid stuff stretches out more info shows the same result.
But as usual that difference escapes you.
I know you cannot tell the difference, but I guess that is why you pop in and out of the forums to remind us of A) how partisan you are or B) how basic facts escape you.
That's not true.
But thank you for proving your original charge that the world is full of not too bright people.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Bruddah IZ
DA
I remember the last time there was Global masking. But please continue.
That’s what bugs me about the ruling. Fire maximum occupancy has nothing to do with air flow. It has to do with exit routes.
By the court’s ruling, if you replace pews with produce bins, the covid risk goes up. Take out the produce bins and put in bar stools, and the covid risk goes back down. (Because grocers have lower occupancy rates per square foot than bars and churches.)
Activist court, pure and simple. Grabbed the nearest available lever and gave it a big shove without thinking about what it was connected to.
It’s why you need to be connect your laws to the thing you care about. If you care about people per square foot and time of stay, then the law should talk about people per square foot and time of stay. Newsom talked about intended use, which was a mistake.
Bruddah IZ
DA
This is the kind of post that renders your POV useless since you choose to ignore Virus history. But waffle on.
You under supreme courts ruling you could probably do a square foot and time of stay rule. But it would mean that a church that was at 25% capacity and a shortened service still would have been better than a crowded Costco on a Saturday afternoon. What you can’t do is categorize churches as nonessential or treat them worse than other categories
@dad4....your wife is now openly complaining about you in the press....time to have a talk with her.
Just kidding, of course.
slate.com
Just kidding, of course.
Help! My Husband Won’t Take His Mask Off—Even for Sex.
We’re both vaccinated now. When will this stop?
I appreciate that you have your own view of what an utopian society should like like and obviously your Covid policies would work flawlessly in this society. However, at the end of the day we all have to live in reality and we can't design policies based upon your or someone else's perception of the ideal world. The reality is that Newsom's and other states' restrictions don't have a great track record of prevailing when challenged in the Courts. The fact it may have been an activist court, or not, is irrelevant. You're great at the "yeah but", the red herring, picking around the margins and semantics; however, your arguments don't substantively overcome the fact that we're entitled to certain freedoms. Certain restrictions are prohibited out right while others can't be applied on a discriminatory basis. There is no question that many of the Covid policies were discriminatory. The worst against our children.
So funny & true. I have a very good friend who just lost his girlfriend because he wont do the Vax. She now has an ad on Tinder that reads, "Vax'd and Wax'd" and looking for the same@dad4....your wife is now openly complaining about you in the press....time to have a talk with her.
Just kidding, of course.
Help! My Husband Won’t Take His Mask Off—Even for Sex.
We’re both vaccinated now. When will this stop?
That's straight up mental illness. He needs to see a therapist, STAT.@dad4....your wife is now openly complaining about you in the press....time to have a talk with her.
Just kidding, of course.
Help! My Husband Won’t Take His Mask Off—Even for Sex.
We’re both vaccinated now. When will this stop?
This was the BINGO statement from the article: “What’s the harm?” is such an insidious phrase. Anyone who says "What's the harm?" doesn't have a fundamental understanding of the problem.
I finally dragged out my fully vaccinated parents for dinner outdoors last night. We had the dog with us so no problem eating outside anyways. The only 2 folks wearing their N95s at the table.
"Yeah, but" they still went out in public to dinner. Plus I don't judge very mature adults. I know too well from my elderly parents that its not worth the effort to try and convince them that their thoughts might not be completely rational. That's not mental illness, that's just getting old.