Bad News Thread

That's why there's expert testimony allowed in courts. But they don't want the health experts making the legal decisions because the health experts don't know the rights and don't balance the competing interests. And there are checks on the judge in the form of the court of appeals and the Supreme Court, so the arguments can be better vetted over time, which is why the wheels of justice move slowly. It's positively Lockeian in its construction.

What's dangerous is having an expert like Fauci make all the decisions, when he only knows his 1 narrow field, is primed to protect his institution, and is subject to hubris. That's the recipe not only for disaster (given all the mistakes he's made along the way) but also for totalitarianism.
Most judges are not qualified to understand the expert testimony. Neither are the appellate court judges or the supreme court justices.

The point is not that there should be no legal review.
The point is that the legal review should be competent. We need minimum scientific training for judges who rule on scientific matters.
 
Most judges are not qualified to understand the expert testimony. Neither are the appellate court judges or the supreme court justices.

The point is not that there should be no legal review.
The point is that the legal review should be competent. We need minimum scientific training for judges who rule on scientific matters.

The way expert testimony is allowed in our courts is ludicrous. Each side hires a qualified expert whose testimony is rehearsed to support their position. I was a juror in a civil trial where the expert hired by the plaintiff calculated a damage of several hundred thousand dollars. The defense expert calculated a damage of zero. Soon after the trial, we were sharing a table at a country club dinner with a lawyer. After I told him my story about experts, he named both of them.
 
The way expert testimony is allowed in our courts is ludicrous. Each side hires a qualified expert whose testimony is rehearsed to support their position. I was a juror in a civil trial where the expert hired by the plaintiff calculated a damage of several hundred thousand dollars. The defense expert calculated a damage of zero. Soon after the trial, we were sharing a table at a country club dinner with a lawyer. After I told him my story about experts, he named both of them.
There are two types of expert witnesses. There are those that are experts at being expert witnesses, and those that are experts in their field that give expert testimony. The former don't typically last very long. Legitimate experts understand that it takes many years to develop your reputation and credibility and one case to destroy it,

Your trial is an example of one and not a very good one at that. In a case where only several hundred thousand dollars is involved, your likely not talking about real reputable experts and instead are getting someone who was paid for a predetermined opinion.
 
There are two types of expert witnesses. There are those that are experts at being expert witnesses, and those that are experts in their field that give expert testimony. The former don't typically last very long. Legitimate experts understand that it takes many years to develop your reputation and credibility and one case to destroy it,

Your trial is an example of one and not a very good one at that. In a case where only several hundred thousand dollars is involved, your likely not talking about real reputable experts and instead are getting someone who was paid for a predetermined opinion.

That was more or less what the lawyer at our table said: "It's their business".
 
Most judges are not qualified to understand the expert testimony. Neither are the appellate court judges or the supreme court justices.

The point is not that there should be no legal review.
The point is that the legal review should be competent. We need minimum scientific training for judges who rule on scientific matters.
I don't think you understand fundamentally how our court system works. Judges typically rule on matters of law. Decisions on the credibility and preponderance of evidence (which is when expert witnesses are typically used) are usually made by juries.
 
Most judges are not qualified to understand the expert testimony. Neither are the appellate court judges or the supreme court justices.

The point is not that there should be no legal review.
The point is that the legal review should be competent. We need minimum scientific training for judges who rule on scientific matters.
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.
 
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.)
 
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
 
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”
 
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.

 
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.

1622730681697.png
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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!!!!


 
Back
Top