Most judges are not qualified to understand the expert testimony. Neither are the appellate court judges or the supreme court justices.
Wow.
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,
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.
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.
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”
freebeacon.com
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.
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.
Take you violence-promoting Q-Anon garbage elsewhere. We don’t need another Jan 06.
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.
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.
Yep. We are starting to see info coming out that is completely at odds of what we were told.
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,
