Posted on 05/06/2020 3:53:41 AM PDT by C19fan
Laws are made by all manner of control freak.
I’m of similar mind to you. I’m beyond tired of control freaks.
BA with Distinction gets you into Harvard?
That means you had a 3.5 gpa or higher. In a liberal arts major.
Total affirmative action idiot. Face in the crowd, and he goes to Harvard.
“ A lifelong Democrat, Judge Moyé is a dedicated public servant who is passionate about justice and committed to mentoring a new generation of legal professionals. Judge Moyé was honored as Trial Judge of the Year by the American Board of Trial Advocates of Texas, Dallas Chapter.”
Okay, so here is the President’s proclamation of the national emergency:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-declaring-national-emergency-concerning-novel-coronavirus-disease-covid-19-outbreak/
After reading it, I find that there is nothing stated that includes the suspension of any rights assigned to individuals in the Bill of Rights. Are those suspensions supposed to be stated in the emergency declaration? If so, well, they aren’t there. If not, then we are subject to the whims and interpretations of the emergency declaration by the various state officials, no?
You make being in contempt of court sound like a bad thing.
Where in the Constitution does it say that Natural Rights are subject to restrictions during a disease outbreak?
Ann Richards. That’s all you need to know. She was a turd on the great state of Texas. Not sure how she got elected; possibly by a bunch of blue state soccer mom transplants.
Anyone familiar with the code section used to justify charging her?
The judge is not hidebound to be vindictive.
This is the kind of injustice that cries out for rebellion.
The answer to this tyranny might be massive civil disobedience.
People by the thousands could justifiably take to the streets in very effective protest and defy the authorities to arrest them all.
We are on the doorstep of an uprising for this kind of nonsense. The judge is a fool for making this woman a martyr.
If this is the “rule of law,” the people will see the law as imposed unfairly.
We govern OURSELVES in the USA. The people own all three branches of government...including the judiciary.
In this case, the relevant order is the one issued by Gov. Abbott, no the one issued by Trump.
If it follows the typical pattern, Abbott has issued quite a few orders. In Maine, a few of the governor’s order say violation is a Class E crime (that “Class E” thing is epressed in maine law, your state will vary on terminology).
Enforcement is via the usual path: cops, DA, court.
Courts typically use weasel words to explain that the constitution is still in effect, even though it isn’t.
“This isn’t some methhead or wife-beater or other ner’do well.”
No, it isn’t. They let all of those and more out of prison to “protect” them from the coronavirus.
It doesn't. You won't find "the law" in the constitution, and if you study enough, you won't find the constitution in the law either.
Gandhi was on to something.
As for the judge, he's a law and order guy., Rule of law, rule of law, rule of law. He likely feels he is a HERO, a shining example of goodness and light.
This woman reminds me of Rosa Parks. Now I know some may not like this comparison, but this woman is a modern-day civil rights hero.
Standing up in the face of tyranny. Risking her business for the cause of justice.
Well, if the governor has stipulated that the health risk requires that the following rules of conduct (and, thus, suspension of certain liberties) be enforced, it is incumbent upon the governor/state to prove that the measures to be enforced are necessary. And, I would say that should cases arise where governors cast people into prison and then it is found that the proof they offer for suspension of rights is weak/insufficient, they should be open to lawsuits/fines/imprisonments (that’s how dear our rights are/that’s how weighty an issue it should be to thinking of suspending them).
It can’t be that one’s constitutional rights can be superseded so willy-nilly. The ultimate authority is the Constitution, something all elected officials swear to uphold. I know that state’s have their constitutions, but these do not trump the US Constitution.
Yes, the politicians do it all the time and we the sheepel allow it. Look at what’s done to all the amendments in one way or another, they push to undermine our rights daily... EPA, IRS, CBP, DHS, TSA...etc. The aformentioned agencies are unconstitutional on their face and impose restrictions, directives, orders and regulations upon us that violate our constitutional rights.
EaCorporations use their over reach to their advantage, by collecting personal information and lobby for more acts of infringement. We the people let it happen by electing unfit, deceitful and dishonest representatives. The rabbit hole of violating an individuals constitutional rights is vast.
You aND the law and this judge regard this woman and her ability to support herself and her family as being NOTHING. A mere technical aspect in a narrow legal question.
This question grew out of an unprecedented theft of constitutional right. Presently in Texas the law is what bureaucrats say it is.
This judge might have tried to figure out a way to acknowledge that “compexity” leftists are always pointing to and exercise some of that “compassion” they are always wrapping themselves in, often and even in the case of judges DISMISSING the law as they please.
But he didnt. This isn’t about a temporary injunction. It is the state asserting that her right to life liberty and the persuit of happyness don’t exist at all. Hence her contempt now for Law.
This is not a personal selfish contempt; the contempt of the thief or the meth-head. Rather it is a moral contempt. The contempt of a supporter and producer and contributor. A contempt that should frighten the judge if he had any brains.
Your Honor, Have you or any member of your family been given a haircut during this shutdown? Was it at their place of business or at their home or did they visit you at another location such as your residence?
Remember, you are under oath your Honor.
In the case you cited, the person had to go through the legal process to finally get justice. Refused to give his guns, but I ‘d bet he gave up his guns before he got to the appellate level. So his contempt for the lower court did not allow him to keep his guns.
In the Texas case, the owner will have a chance to argue the law/order was unconstitutional, that her contempt of court should be thrown out, get her money back. She won’t be able to get the time back she spent in jail. Pyrrhic victory, perhaps. Practically speaking, she could have made the same point, pursued the same path without going to jail. But she believed she could defy the judge (even if the judge is wrong on the rule of law). That contempt citation happened should be no surprise. We all like to play by the rules, so there is order and justice, no?
THIS IS TYRANNY.
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.