- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Judge sides with Louisiana governor on draconian new mask rules
Posted on 8/6/20 at 7:31 pm to boosiebadazz
Posted on 8/6/20 at 7:31 pm to boosiebadazz
First off my statement was more of a broad scale of what had to be done prior to this ruling in order to assure this kind of outcome. She also gave her opinion on the virus. I dont care for her personal opinion. It shows her prejudice.
Secondly I simply disagree with her ruling and look forward to the appeals process. And oh yeah Im getting in the reps faces(figuratively of course...wouldnt want to give em the worst disease ever with my breath ya know)
How was I looking for big gubment to save me here?
Secondly I simply disagree with her ruling and look forward to the appeals process. And oh yeah Im getting in the reps faces(figuratively of course...wouldnt want to give em the worst disease ever with my breath ya know)
How was I looking for big gubment to save me here?
1
Posted on 8/6/20 at 7:32 pm to goofball
Posted on 8/6/20 at 7:36 pm to rattlebucket
quote:What is the specific legal basis of your disagreement?
Secondly I simply disagree with her ruling and look forward to the appeals process.
I'm not trying to call you out, just not hip on the intricacies of the case and the decision.
Posted on 8/6/20 at 7:38 pm to Alt26
quote:Do the appellants get to choose which circuit it goes to?
The first circuit court of appeal is more "conservative" should the plaintiff's choose to appeal
ETA: Or are you just saying that is the appellate circuit with jurisdiction here. I don't know LA civil procedure.
This post was edited on 8/6/20 at 7:40 pm
Posted on 8/6/20 at 7:44 pm to Gravitiger
I think the powers given the gov and what it ultimately led to are unconstitutional. Im not a lawyer but just voicing my opinion. Businesses are rotting and never coming back because of this BS. I dont care about party here. They can all get voted out.
Not trying to be a prick here but do you think slavery was ok when it was legal?
Not trying to be a prick here but do you think slavery was ok when it was legal?
Posted on 8/6/20 at 7:59 pm to rattlebucket
quote:What are the powers he is relying on that you believe are unconstitutional? How was their granting unconstitutional? How is "what they led to" unconstitutional? What was the part of the judicial order you disagree with?
I think the powers given the gov and what it ultimately led to are unconstitutional. Im not a lawyer but just voicing my opinion. Businesses are rotting and never coming back because of this BS. I dont care about party here. They can all get voted out.
quote:No. But "ok" and "legal" or "constitutional" aren't the same thing. Under the US Constitution at the time, it was, very unfortunately, constitutional. But you specifically said you think these powers are "unconstitutional", not just "not ok". Those are different arguments.
Not trying to be a prick here but do you think slavery was ok when it was legal?
This post was edited on 8/6/20 at 8:34 pm
Posted on 8/6/20 at 8:06 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
You honestly could copy and paste from the link I posted and answer my question.
But then again you’d have to know what to look for, and I just don’t think you do
In a different thread discussing details about the law, he actually bitched when I copied/pasted in the law for him. Sometimes, all you can say is "bless your heart" and move on
Posted on 8/6/20 at 8:13 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
For a bunch of small government conservatives, you sure are looking like big government democrats asking the judiciary to save you when you should be beating down the door of your state rep telling him to do his fricking job.
Wouldn’t a small government conservative want the judicial branch to strike down mandates that arguably exceed the executive branch’s authority?
Posted on 8/6/20 at 8:19 pm to goofball
Why do people think that requiring a mask is unconstitutional?
Health inspectors enforce A LOT of requirements that are not codified into law. The department has latitude to create regulations based on the interests of public health. They could require gloves as well. It's totally up to them, but they must apply it uniformly.
Health inspectors enforce A LOT of requirements that are not codified into law. The department has latitude to create regulations based on the interests of public health. They could require gloves as well. It's totally up to them, but they must apply it uniformly.
Posted on 8/6/20 at 8:25 pm to UpToPar
quote:No. A small government conservative would want courts to apply the standard required by law. Not the "arguable" standard.
Wouldn’t a small government conservative want the judicial branch to strike down mandates that arguably exceed the executive branch’s authority?
What would that even mean? If a law/order is "arguably" unconstitutional, it's invalid? Who has the burden of proving it is or is not "arguable"?
Everything is arguable. Fortunately, that's not the standard courts apply. Even the reasonable doubt standard has room for "arguable" bullshite.
This post was edited on 8/6/20 at 8:38 pm
Posted on 8/6/20 at 8:41 pm to goofball
quote:
draconian
You no longer get to use this word.
Posted on 8/6/20 at 8:41 pm to Gravitiger
quote:
No. A small government conservative would want courts to apply the standard required by law.
What is the standard the court should apply here?
quote:
What would that even mean? If an order is "arguably" wrong, it's invalid? Who has the burden of proving it is or is not "arguable"?
Everything is arguable. Fortunately, that's not the standard courts apply. Even the reasonable doubt standard has room for "arguable."
What are you talking about? The reason I said that it was an "arguable" abuse of powers is because obviously people can and will reach different opinions as to whether this particular mandate goes too far.
It's not a foregone conclusion that this particular mandate is not arbitrary and has no significant relation to the protection of public health.
Even so, a small government conservative may believe that the standard currently applied by the courts when determining whether a mandate issued by the executive exceeds the expanded executive powers during an epidemic is wrong and that the executive powers should be more limited. You know, the basic principle of small government conservatism.
Posted on 8/6/20 at 8:49 pm to goofball
Just open the bars in Jefferson Parish, and protect them with JPPD. Time to rebel. I don’t go to bars, but I’d do it for this.
Posted on 8/6/20 at 8:52 pm to RougeDawg
quote:
The irony of an illegal judge making decisions on this
The irony is that a moron like you thinks he should opine. She is not an illegal judge.
Posted on 8/6/20 at 8:52 pm to UpToPar
quote:People can and will reach different opinions about virtually anything. The point is that has nothing to do with the legal standard a court is required to apply. If that were the standard, every action ever taken by any government official would be subject to legal scrutiny.
What are you talking about? The reason I said that it was an "arguable" abuse of powers is because obviously people can and will reach different opinions as to whether this particular mandate goes too far.
quote:Except that isn't the basic principle of small government conservatism. The principle, at least in terms of judicial power, is, "Follow the constitution, or get it changed." It's definitely not, "Courts should apply a totally different standard when it suits them." That's the definition of judicial activism.
Even so, a small government conservative may believe that the standard currently applied by the courts when determining whether a mandate issued by the executive exceeds the expanded executive powers during an epidemic is wrong and that the executive powers should be more limited. You know, the basic principle of small government conservatism.
This post was edited on 8/6/20 at 9:05 pm
Posted on 8/6/20 at 9:02 pm to Gravitiger
quote:
The principle is, "Follow the constitution, or get it changed."
And which constitutional provision requires one to conclude that this is a permissible exercise of government power?
Posted on 8/6/20 at 9:10 pm to UpToPar
quote:Nothing "requires" you to "conclude" anything.
And which constitutional provision requires one to conclude that this is a permissible exercise of government power?
From a practical standpoint, the one that allows judges to interpret it as such. Same one that allows appeals if you disagree with the judge.
This post was edited on 8/6/20 at 9:18 pm
Posted on 8/6/20 at 9:16 pm to UpToPar
Bigger picture, I think this is a legit question that has not been adequately addressed from an ethical/social contract perspective:
If the government takes action that citizens believe is unconstitutional, who should have the burden of proof? Should government have to prove its actions are valid, or should citizens have to prove they aren't?
If the government takes action that citizens believe is unconstitutional, who should have the burden of proof? Should government have to prove its actions are valid, or should citizens have to prove they aren't?
Posted on 8/6/20 at 9:17 pm to Gravitiger
quote:
People can and will reach different opinions about virtually anything. The point is that has nothing to do with the legal standard a court is required to apply.
When did I say anything about the legal standard having some arguable requirement? You said that because you didn’t understand the point I was making.
A legitimate argument could be made that this particular mandate should be struck down under the applicable standard.
A legitimate argument could also be made that the constitution requires a more heightened standard than has been applied by courts in the past.
A small government conservative can believe that the court here should have either found that (1) this mandate does not pass the applicable standard applied by prior courts or (2) the standard applied by prior courts is too relaxed and a heightened standard should apply particularly when we are taking away people’s livelihood.
Posted on 8/6/20 at 9:19 pm to Gravitiger
quote:
Bigger picture, I think this is a legit question that has not been adequately addressed from an ethical/social contract perspective:
If the government takes action that citizens believe is unconstitutional, who should have the burden of proof? Should government have to prove its actions are valid, or should citizens have to prove they aren't?
I can't speak to the social contract, but in the American legal system, a legitimately passed law is presumed constitutional when challenged. The challenger bears the burden.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News