Posted on 05/23/2020 7:39:49 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Social distancing is useless this side of Mars, at this point. The virus will run its course, and probably has already. It's what they do. Sooner or later, everyone gets exposed to any virus, and develops some immunity. Those in a vulnerable state are at risk of their lives. But that's the case, whether it's sooner or later. Treatments like hydroxychloroquine (to calm down the body's inflammation in reaction to the virus) with zinc (to blow up the virus itself) seem to save lives when the infection is caught early.
Social distancing at the beginning can slow down the spread so the cases don't need medical treatment all at once and crash the hospital system. But at this point, social distancing is worse than useless. It will cause far more deaths by crashing the economy than the Wubonic Plague could ever do by itself.
That's why the barber is no threat.
Well what matters is that he elected officials have decided that it is a threat.
We the people elected legislators who saw fit to give that decision making authority to an elected official.
You may not see it as a serious threat. I do. And we can agree to disagree. But the Governor of that state sees it as a serious threat and used her duly enacted powers to deal with it.
Again there is a question of the 1976 law superseding the 1945 law without specifically saying it was superseding the 1945 law. But that’s up to the courts to decide.
You can question her judgement all day long, but she was elected and has the law on her side.
Elections have consequences.
But, does that act give the state the power to incarcerate someone for defying a “recommendation”?
But isn’t this order interfering with interstate commerce
That’s your opinion. It’s not mine. It’s not the opinion of the medical community or the Governor who has the legal authority granted to her by the people through duly enacted legislation to act.
The judge apparently agrees with you, but in my opinion, it’s not the judges appropriate role. The legislature gives the authority to the elected Governor, not the judge. For the judge to overrule the Governor, the judge needs a very strong argument that the governor is wrong. And with so many medical professionals agreeing with the Governor, the judge doesn’t have that.
Supporting the judge overturning the Governor on such a weak assumption contrary to the medical professionals and the stated law is the real tyranny.
You don’t have to agree with the medical professionals or the Governor, but the legal framework shouldn’t be dismissed in favor of a rogue judge on a whim.
Can someone tell me the difference between opening last week or next week....if the same distancing rules are in effect?
The answer is "0".
We do not live in a binary world.
There are many other alternative views.
How about understanding where the barber is coming from, and understanding where the protesters are coming from, without totally agreeing with what they did.
Binary thinking is for computers, not people.
We have a duty to ignore bad dictatorial laws.
Prohibition was a bad law. The people ignored it. Same here.
How? Not directly, that I see. And if it did, it would be up to President Trump or the DOJ to take action. And Trump might. But I suspect he is just going to jawbone the governors.
I think Trump is walking a political tight rope to keep his base from fragmenting.
Look at how many people on FR are saying Trump was played. They are making Trump out to be a fool, just because they don't like what this virus has done to our economy. They are angry and looking for someone to blame. And they are blaming it on government, on Fauci who has almost no direct power and even on Trump.
Trump gets that. And is responding accordingly.
THIS IS ON WHITMER! Black Man Seen Beating Elderly Senior Was A COVID-19 ‘Patient’ With Mental Disorders That Was Sent In Nursing Home By Mistake
Not just infecting a nursing home - sending a large, Covid-infected mentally whacked Nuffin in to beat up the senior citizens in the nursing home:
You sidestepped - the sheriff is the arbiter of what is a constitutional mandate, and swore an oath to uphold the constitution.
arbiter of what is a constitutional mandate for his county.
Government on the other hand wants to create jobs - government jobs, people enforcing business licenses and regulations. Then they want people to jump through hoops to get business licenses - barber school which has a fee, the license application process which takes time, and then there is the cost of the license itself. All of these are barriers to enter into the free market. Government should strive to reduce barriers to enter and exit markets. It's a fundamental aspect of capitalism. But government doesn't do that, in fact any time when there is government it begets more government, more taxes, less freedom, higher costs, and greater barriers to do business.
The solution here is simple. Get rid the vast majority of government. That leads to greater freedom, higher employment, lower taxes, and a hell of a lot less to worry about in life.
You sound like a Karen that hates freedom.
That's a valid point. But the Sheriff is only arbiter as to whether or not he will enforce the law. I assume the Barber was charged by state or local police instead of the sheriff. Which made the Sheriff irrelevant except to the extent his decision influenced the court.
I maintain that the sheriff's decision shouldn't play an out sized role in the court decision. There were other factors at play in the Sheriff's decision, including the militia.
The court should consider the law and whether a real threat existed. And I think there is more than sufficient evidence that the threat is real, and that the Governor was within her legislated powers to act.
The judge is legislating from the bench by substituting his own opinion for those of the Medical professionals and the Governor.
Or said another way:
You don’t have to agree with the judge, but the legal framework shouldn’t be dismissed in favor of a rogue governor on a whim.
It's the judge's jurisdiction and purview to review the facts and apply the law. You happen to disagree because of your own biases or interpretation of the law.
True, and the judges decision stands, until it’s appealed.
But I think it will be overturned on appeal based on my opinion and my reading of the law.
We will see.
Finally a smart one
The Barber of She Fell
Argumentum ad populum is for stupid lemmings
Argumentum ad populum based on flawed/
wrong info (e. g. the corrupt WHO)
is murder, economic destruction, sociopathy etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.