- 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 9:19 pm to Gravitiger
Posted on 8/6/20 at 9:19 pm to Gravitiger
quote:
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.
Which on is that? You going to point to it?
1
Posted on 8/6/20 at 9:20 pm to UpToPar
A "legitimate argument" is also not the legal standard.
Posted on 8/6/20 at 9:21 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
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.
There are ways to flip the burden, particularly when dealing with fundamental rights, but we’re getting way in the weeds.
Posted on 8/6/20 at 9:23 pm to Gravitiger
quote:
A "legitimate argument" is also not the legal standard.
Are you being intentionally obtuse?
Posted on 8/6/20 at 9:23 pm to Joshjrn
quote:The American legal system is founded on Paine's idea of social contract. Question I'm asking is should that be the burden?
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.
Posted on 8/6/20 at 9:24 pm to UpToPar
quote:No, just asking you not to be.
Are you being intentionally obtuse?
Posted on 8/6/20 at 9:25 pm to Gravitiger
I can’t comprehend it for you. Try reading it slower.
Posted on 8/6/20 at 9:26 pm to UpToPar
quote:This whole thing started with me asking someone to point to it.
Which on is that? You going to point to it?
Is there actually not an obvious provision of the LA state constitution that allows the judiciary to review executive orders for their constitutionality? Or are you just being obtuse?
This post was edited on 8/6/20 at 9:36 pm
Posted on 8/6/20 at 9:30 pm to UpToPar
quote:I tried. Still doesn't intelligibly respond to anything I said.
I can’t comprehend it for you. Try reading it slower.
Posted on 8/6/20 at 9:32 pm to Gravitiger
Here’s the operative language from the case boosie linked:
If I were arguing that this mandate should be struck down I would argue that the law is both arbitrary and not substantially related to protecting the public health.
Now your turn. Point to the constitutional provision requiring a court to apply the previously applied standard of judicial review to this particular case.
quote:
The bottom line is this: when faced with a society-threatening epidemic, a state may implement emergency measures that curtail constitutional rights so long as the measures have at least some “real or substantial relation” to the public health crisis and are not “beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law.” Id. at 31. Courts may ask whether the state’s emergency measures lack basic exceptions for “extreme cases,” and whether the measures are pretextual—that is, arbitrary or oppressive. Id. at 38. At the same time, however, courts may not second-guess the wisdom or efficacy of the measures. Id. at 28, 30.
If I were arguing that this mandate should be struck down I would argue that the law is both arbitrary and not substantially related to protecting the public health.
Now your turn. Point to the constitutional provision requiring a court to apply the previously applied standard of judicial review to this particular case.
This post was edited on 8/6/20 at 9:34 pm
Posted on 8/6/20 at 9:37 pm to UpToPar
Thank you.
I'm not trying to argue it's constitutional or not. I was literally just asking for the argument that it is or isn't, from either side.
The person I originally asked was obviously full of shite. You obviously aren't. So again thank you.
ETA: Although a small government conservative wouldn't want a federal court interpreting the validity of a state constitution, so there's that.
I'm not trying to argue it's constitutional or not. I was literally just asking for the argument that it is or isn't, from either side.
The person I originally asked was obviously full of shite. You obviously aren't. So again thank you.
ETA: Although a small government conservative wouldn't want a federal court interpreting the validity of a state constitution, so there's that.
This post was edited on 8/7/20 at 8:55 am
Posted on 8/6/20 at 9:39 pm to UpToPar
quote:
There are ways to flip the burden, particularly when dealing with fundamental rights, but we’re getting way in the weeds.
Way, way in the weeds, but I appreciate you
Posted on 8/6/20 at 9:39 pm to UpToPar
And there was extensive and detailed testimony from the State about why they took the actions they did. The judiciary should defer to the executive unless the executive is being arbitrary and oppressive. Point me to any evidence today that the state is being arbitrary.
What it really is is the Legislature is too spineless to sign the petition and end this and end up owning the consequences. They gave JBE the power and they can literally take it back with the stroke of pens- no analysis or rationale required.
This was a Hail Mary because the Legislature doesn’t want to own the spike if/when they end the emergency. A small government conservative would opt for the most efficient route laid out in the law. Today’s lawsuit literally asked the judge to supplant herself into the role of the executive by finding he was acting arbitrarily. I think any fair reading of the testimony of the DHH guy would find they’re not acting arbitrarily- there is a mountain of data driving their decision-making process. It’s not her job to judge the wisdom or efficacy of the actions of the Governor- that’s the function of the Legislature.
What it really is is the Legislature is too spineless to sign the petition and end this and end up owning the consequences. They gave JBE the power and they can literally take it back with the stroke of pens- no analysis or rationale required.
This was a Hail Mary because the Legislature doesn’t want to own the spike if/when they end the emergency. A small government conservative would opt for the most efficient route laid out in the law. Today’s lawsuit literally asked the judge to supplant herself into the role of the executive by finding he was acting arbitrarily. I think any fair reading of the testimony of the DHH guy would find they’re not acting arbitrarily- there is a mountain of data driving their decision-making process. It’s not her job to judge the wisdom or efficacy of the actions of the Governor- that’s the function of the Legislature.
This post was edited on 8/6/20 at 9:43 pm
Posted on 8/6/20 at 9:42 pm to UpToPar
quote:If we're talking about fundamental rights, we are not in the weeds.
There are ways to flip the burden, particularly when dealing with fundamental rights, but we’re getting way in the weeds.
Posted on 8/6/20 at 9:43 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Point me to any evidence today that the state is being arbitrary.
The fact that the Governor has arbitrarily singled out bars without placing the same restrictions on casinos. That's not arbitrary to you?
Posted on 8/6/20 at 9:44 pm to UpToPar
Define "arbitrary". BOP on the plaintiff.
ETA: I agree with you, just having a fun word exercise.
ETA: I agree with you, just having a fun word exercise.
This post was edited on 8/6/20 at 9:46 pm
Posted on 8/6/20 at 9:48 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
What it really is is the Legislature is too spineless to sign the petition and end this and end up owning the consequences. They gave JBE the power and they can literally take it back with the stroke of pens- no analysis or rationale required.
This was a Hail Mary because the Legislature doesn’t want to own the spike if/when they end the emergency.
I don't disagree with this.
quote:
A small government conservative would opt for the most efficient route laid out in the law
I disagree. I think a small government conservative would rather the mandate struck down by a court rather than through the legislative process. Would (ideally) curtail government overreach down the road.
quote:
Today’s lawsuit literally asked the judge to supplant herself into the role of the executive by finding he was acting arbitrarily. I think any fair reading of the testimony of the DHH guy would find they’re not acting arbitrarily- there is a mountain of data driving their decision-making process. It’s not her job to judge the wisdom or efficacy of the actions of the Governor- that’s the function of the Legislature.
I didn't see what the governor's office offered at the hearing.
Posted on 8/6/20 at 10:00 pm to S
STFU and suck a dick.
Posted on 8/7/20 at 10:40 am to goofball
quote:
More erosion of civil liberties and economic health under the guise of public safety
Civil liberties is a stretch but economic health? Wearing a mask jeopardizes the the economy? You wonder why the political polls look like they do.
Posted on 8/7/20 at 10:48 am to Jp1LSU
quote:
Civil liberties is a stretch but economic health? Wearing a mask jeopardizes the the economy?
Now this is a great example of being willfully obtuse. It is clear violation of civil liberties and of course it can impact the economy. People don't like wearing masks and the majority rightly feel they shouldn't have to. Some of those folks refuse to shop or dine at places requiring masks. That impacts how people are spending money. That impacts the economy.
Mask mandates are absolutely impacting tourism because people are not taking trips to places like Disney where it is hot and masks are required.
Anything that infringes upon a business's right to operate as they see fit impacts the economy.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News