Pennsylvania Ping!
Please ping me with articles of interest.
FReepmail me to be added to the list.
Posted on 09/15/2020 5:03:58 AM PDT by cotton1706
Pennsylvania was like most states at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, soon enough implementing a series of coronavirus lockdowns and related mandates that included shuttering “non-life-sustaining” businesses to curb the spread of the virus. The measures also included clamping down on gatherings of 25 people indoors and 250 people outdoors.
Unfortunately, the restrictions led a group of plaintiffs including hair salons, drive-in movie theaters, as well as some Republican officeholders to file a lawsuit against Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf and his health secretary against measures they claimed were over-broad and infringed on their rights. And, in a bit of a surprise, a federal judge on Monday ended up siding with the plaintiffs. That means, US District Judge William Stickman IV ruled, the state’s actions were unconstitutional.
While the ruling, according to local news accounts, acknowledged that the measures were an understandable response to COVID-19 and “were undertaken with the good intention of addressing a public health emergency,” Stickman goes on to declare that “even in an emergency, the authority of government is not unfettered. The Constitution cannot accept the concept of a ‘new normal’ where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures.”
Elsewhere in Stickman’s ruling, he opined that “Good intentions toward a laudable end are not enough to uphold governmental action against a constitutional challenge.” Among the consequences of this ruling, plaintiffs attorney Thomas W. King III told reporters after it was issued, is that the current pandemic-related restrictions in place in the state such as limitations on the size of gatherings cannot be enforced.
(Excerpt) Read more at bgr.com ...
Not entirely true. One state senator, Doug Mastriano - a retired Army colonel from the York area, has led the efforts in the state legislature to put an end to this nonsense, but was overruled by the state supreme court. I fully expect Doug to run for governor in two years.
No bias there...
Ping
Living in Pa., I feel that I have the right to say that Governer Tom Wolf is exactly what he appears to be, a dick with ears.
The Federal rulings will override the state courts. It happens all the time — even in extreme cases where Federal troops have been used to enforce school desegregation orders.
It’s worth noting that the Carlisle Car Show won their legal battle simply by presenting evidence in court showing that jackass governor parading around in “Black Lives Matter” protests — without a face diaper and with no social distancing measures in place. The judge in that case basically just laughed the health commissioner’s lawyers out of her courtroom.
The good news is the the ruling was from a federal judge. If it had been a state court/judge who made the ruling, Wolf would have run to the PA state Supreme Court, whose majority are in his pocket. Wolf will have a more difficult time trying to have the ruling overturned in the federal court system.
This may be so, but as my wife pointed out, the sword Wolf has had over businesses is to revoke their licenses. This court ruling takes away that threat.
I am fully expecting Fauci to spout off about this today in an effort to sway the appeals court.
Thanks to both of you!
You win this thread. Congrats!
Pennsylvania Ping!
Please ping me with articles of interest.
FReepmail me to be added to the list.
DOH!
Why didn’t I think of Judicial Watch???
Nice catch...
Until Wolf finds an Obama judge to say Wolf really is dictator for life and that's that. Which he'll do.
The Steelers are owned by an anti-American *sshole. Screw ‘em.
Sets up an interesting comparison.
The sames measure were presumed constitutional in an emergency of limited time duration - courts would generally NOT give temporary restraining order on the same facts, because courts aren’t a good place to judge the nature of the emergency.
But after the passage of time, the same facts and the same measures become too much for the constitution to bear.
Now that we have this experience behind us, how will the courts judge the edicts issued when the next novel virus pandemic starts?
Keep in mind there is SCOTUS precedent in support of California limiting church attendance due to pandemic, but that was in the TRO context.
"There seems to be one law for the peaceful and another for the dangerous," Mr Bolt said. "The easier you are to bully around because you are a law-abiding, nice person ... the more your freedoms are actually in danger.
This is an obvious truth. It's why government make examples out of the weak, it's easier and it cows most of the rest into submission.
And it isn't just that your freedoms are in danger, they are TAKEN, forbidden by the government that claims to be for protecting freedom.
Governments do not function by protecting freedom. They function by limiting freedom. The more power government has, the more freedom it limits.
I hope the court’s decision is upheld on appeal, and I wish that Judge Stickman has issued a nationwide injunction as RAT judges routinely do in the ordinary course of ruling against anything conservative.
Although the Plaintiffs asserted a number of constitutional challenges (freedom of speech, assembly, and travel, due process, and equal protection), I am surprised that the they did not assert a “takings claim” — that the complete shutdown of legitimate businesses in the name of public heath resulted in the inverse condemnation of private property for the public good without just compensation.
Last I heard, PA sports bar / restaurants (at least here in Montgomery county), just got ordered to stop selling alcohol after 10pm, beginning September 21st.
This is the final nail in the coffin for many sports bar / restaurants which were limping by on 25% seating capacity, suspended promotional activities, such as league pool, live music, quizzo, back to college celebrations, and televised sports events.
Even apart from the seating capacity restrictions, business is way off, as customers stay away for a myriad of reasons: Some actually fear Covid19, others are disappointed or confused by the limited services, limited menus, unpredictable hours, reduced entertainment - many customers, apparently, find the ambience of a mostly-empty establishment with small clusters of mask-wearing introverts to be depressing.
Owners, managers and servers had worked hard and sacrificed much to adapt to the distancing guidelines, hoping to survive the summer, strung along by vague promises that PA should be able to return to normal “sometime in the fall”, but this new order is a real punch in the gut.
Since this a Federal Judge, does it apply to other states?
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.