Members banned from this thread: katzgar


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: Green v. Alachua County. #MaskMandates are "presumptively unconstitutional" (Fl)

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    life
    Posts
    47,264
    Thanks
    12,032
    Thanked 19,730 Times in 13,867 Posts
    Groans
    242
    Groaned 1,836 Times in 1,749 Posts

    Default Green v. Alachua County. #MaskMandates are "presumptively unconstitutional" (Fl)


  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to anatta For This Post:

    Darth Omar (06-14-2021), ExpressLane (06-14-2021), Grokmaster (06-14-2021), Stretch (06-14-2021)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    life
    Posts
    47,264
    Thanks
    12,032
    Thanked 19,730 Times in 13,867 Posts
    Groans
    242
    Groaned 1,836 Times in 1,749 Posts

    Default

    Judge Keim mistakenly ruled originally that Mr. Green’s privacy right in going naked-faced around town was no greater than the “right of his fellow citizens not to become infected.” The opinion is silent on what evidence Judge Keim may have considered in reaching the conclusion that face coverings work to prevent infection. It’s also important to note that there was never any allegation that Green was ever infected himself with anything. Reading between the lines it sure looks like Judge Keim is making some assumptions on this point – maybe we will learn more at the next hearing.


    What is meant by “presumptively unconstitutional?” The short answer is that there is a right to privacy. That right – unlike some other rights – is considered “fundamental” and as such it outranks other less important rights. Any law or “diktat’ issued by a county commissioner that infringes on a fundamental right is presumed to be unconstitutional and will be struck down unless there is a “compelling state interest” and the diktat is narrowly tailored to serve that compelling interest.

    So what did Judge Keim get wrong? Well – as it turns out Judge Keim wielded the judicial rubber stamp when she “did not subject the mask mandate to strict-scrutiny analysis, because the court concluded at the threshold that there was no cognizable constitutional right in play. As the trial court put it in its order, “[t]here is no recognized constitutional right not to wear a facial covering in public locations or to expose other citizens of the county to a contagious and potentially lethal virus during a declared pandemic emergency.”

    Oops. But there’s more.

    The trial court, though, did not assess Florida law to consider Green’s asserted right of privacy. Indeed, it never discussed or even referenced the Florida Constitution’s express guarantee of privacy.

    Double oops.

    Judge Keim gets a do-over.

    Judge Tanenbaum makes many excellent points and everyone should read the entire opinion. But one point Judge Tanenbaum makes about naked faces is a particularly important legal point. You might be wondering what masking has to do with privacy. Well it works like this. A fundamental right to privacy includes complete freedom of a person to control his own body which therefore means "a person can reasonably expect not to be forced by the government to put something on his own face against his will.” Clearly Judge Tanenbaum is telling Judge Keim that the right to facial nakedness is greater that whatever infection risk, if any, Mr. Green may have posed to his fellow Walmart shoppers.

    Like many other lawyers, I have watched and waited over the course of the Covid19 pandemic as lawyers have remained on the sidelines and courts acted as mere rubber stamps in approving any and all manner of arbitrary and legally dubious local, state, and federal edicts.

    This is not the first challenge to a mask mandate or other of the patchwork of various COVID protocols we have been living with nor is it likely to be the last. And this ruling admittedly is limited in its own direct impact on anyone other than Mr. Green in his quest to breathe free. But what this ruling does is it shows that some judges will stand up for the constitution and for individual freedom even when doing so may be unpopular.

    It is refreshing to know there are at least some in the legal world who understand one core principle:

    Even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.
    https://townhall.com/columnists/phil...kdown-n2590924

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to anatta For This Post:

    ExpressLane (06-14-2021), Stretch (06-14-2021)

  5. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    11,772
    Thanks
    779
    Thanked 6,760 Times in 4,149 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 1,231 Times in 1,168 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Yawn. Cry some more, traitor.

    What next, you want your constitutional right to show off your tiny penis in public?

  6. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    life
    Posts
    47,264
    Thanks
    12,032
    Thanked 19,730 Times in 13,867 Posts
    Groans
    242
    Groaned 1,836 Times in 1,749 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concart View Post
    Yawn. Cry some more, traitor.

    What next, you want your constitutional right to show off your tiny penis in public?
    retarded

  7. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    29,369
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 13,906 Times in 8,863 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2,408 Times in 2,238 Posts

    Default

    Isn’t that history by now? Other than the airlines, can’t recall anyone in awhile going to bat over mask mandates, and at its core, this judge merely weighed in on the other side of the balancing test, meaning the precedent could easily be overturned tomorrow. And given she is a State Judge in Florida, not a surprise

    Question today is mandating vaccines

    “A judge dismisses Houston hospital workers’ lawsuit about vaccines”
    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/13/h...e-lawsuit.html

  8. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    11,772
    Thanks
    779
    Thanked 6,760 Times in 4,149 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 1,231 Times in 1,168 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anatta View Post
    retarded
    A statement that you have a constitutional right to walk around naked is fucking retarded, traitor.

  9. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    11,772
    Thanks
    779
    Thanked 6,760 Times in 4,149 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 1,231 Times in 1,168 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    "A fundamental right to privacy includes complete freedom of a person to control his own body which therefore means "a person can reasonably expect not to be forced by the government to put something on his own face against his will.”"

    THIS is completely fucking retarded. Obviously. Well obvious to someone with an IQ over 75.

  10. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    10,724
    Thanks
    2,894
    Thanked 6,196 Times in 4,127 Posts
    Groans
    422
    Groaned 710 Times in 658 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concart View Post
    "A fundamental right to privacy includes complete freedom of a person to control his own body which therefore means "a person can reasonably expect not to be forced by the government to put something on his own face against his will.”"

    THIS is completely fucking retarded. Obviously. Well obvious to someone with an IQ over 75.
    Let's see these morons try it with seatbelts. The police will make a bundle.

  11. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    11,772
    Thanks
    779
    Thanked 6,760 Times in 4,149 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 1,231 Times in 1,168 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jade Dragon View Post
    Let's see these morons try it with seatbelts. The police will make a bundle.
    Or pants. Or shoes. Or........

    The notion is patently absurd. Seat belts are a good example. There are literally hundreds more that show how stupid that is.

  12. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    48,794
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jade Dragon View Post
    Let's see these morons try it with seatbelts. The police will make a bundle.
    oh, lookie there. another moron who needs the government to tell them what the constitution means. congratulations on your being a failure as an American
    In a combat situation it is about 16 times better to do something useful and violent right away than to wait and figure out something even more useful and violent later.
    “whenever you put your faith in big government for any reason, sooner or later you end up an apologist for mass murder.”

  13. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    9,538
    Thanks
    487
    Thanked 2,944 Times in 2,345 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 111 Times in 108 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concart View Post
    Yawn. Cry some more, traitor.

    What next, you want your constitutional right to show off your tiny penis in public?
    No different than your constitutional right to show off your tiny brain which you do every day here you mass murdering fuck.

  14. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    9,538
    Thanks
    487
    Thanked 2,944 Times in 2,345 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 111 Times in 108 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jade Dragon View Post
    Let's see these morons try it with seatbelts. The police will make a bundle.
    Driving isnt a right you fucking moron it's a privilege.

  15. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    47,911
    Thanks
    13,829
    Thanked 30,819 Times in 20,314 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,268 Times in 1,200 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jade Dragon View Post
    Let's see these morons try it with seatbelts. The police will make a bundle.
    But blind faith isn’t required to think a seat belt will keep you inside the are in an accident lol.

    About time there’s some pushback on some of this nonsense. There may be hope after all.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  16. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    land-locked in Ocala,FL
    Posts
    26,044
    Thanks
    29,477
    Thanked 16,081 Times in 11,084 Posts
    Groans
    999
    Groaned 859 Times in 817 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anatta View Post
    Judge Keim mistakenly ruled originally that Mr. Green’s privacy right in going naked-faced around town was no greater than the “right of his fellow citizens not to become infected.” The opinion is silent on what evidence Judge Keim may have considered in reaching the conclusion that face coverings work to prevent infection. It’s also important to note that there was never any allegation that Green was ever infected himself with anything. Reading between the lines it sure looks like Judge Keim is making some assumptions on this point – maybe we will learn more at the next hearing.


    What is meant by “presumptively unconstitutional?” The short answer is that there is a right to privacy. That right – unlike some other rights – is considered “fundamental” and as such it outranks other less important rights. Any law or “diktat’ issued by a county commissioner that infringes on a fundamental right is presumed to be unconstitutional and will be struck down unless there is a “compelling state interest” and the diktat is narrowly tailored to serve that compelling interest.

    So what did Judge Keim get wrong? Well – as it turns out Judge Keim wielded the judicial rubber stamp when she “did not subject the mask mandate to strict-scrutiny analysis, because the court concluded at the threshold that there was no cognizable constitutional right in play. As the trial court put it in its order, “[t]here is no recognized constitutional right not to wear a facial covering in public locations or to expose other citizens of the county to a contagious and potentially lethal virus during a declared pandemic emergency.”

    Oops. But there’s more.

    The trial court, though, did not assess Florida law to consider Green’s asserted right of privacy. Indeed, it never discussed or even referenced the Florida Constitution’s express guarantee of privacy.

    Double oops.

    Judge Keim gets a do-over.

    Judge Tanenbaum makes many excellent points and everyone should read the entire opinion. But one point Judge Tanenbaum makes about naked faces is a particularly important legal point. You might be wondering what masking has to do with privacy. Well it works like this. A fundamental right to privacy includes complete freedom of a person to control his own body which therefore means "a person can reasonably expect not to be forced by the government to put something on his own face against his will.” Clearly Judge Tanenbaum is telling Judge Keim that the right to facial nakedness is greater that whatever infection risk, if any, Mr. Green may have posed to his fellow Walmart shoppers.

    Like many other lawyers, I have watched and waited over the course of the Covid19 pandemic as lawyers have remained on the sidelines and courts acted as mere rubber stamps in approving any and all manner of arbitrary and legally dubious local, state, and federal edicts.

    This is not the first challenge to a mask mandate or other of the patchwork of various COVID protocols we have been living with nor is it likely to be the last. And this ruling admittedly is limited in its own direct impact on anyone other than Mr. Green in his quest to breathe free. But what this ruling does is it shows that some judges will stand up for the constitution and for individual freedom even when doing so may be unpopular.

    It is refreshing to know there are at least some in the legal world who understand one core principle:

    Even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.
    https://townhall.com/columnists/phil...kdown-n2590924
    Bravo!
    Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
    empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
    pain in abortion.

    Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
    which has begun. To abort life is to end it.



  17. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    7,679
    Thanks
    573
    Thanked 4,198 Times in 2,573 Posts
    Groans
    7
    Groaned 879 Times in 822 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    But blind faith isn’t required to think a seat belt will keep you inside the are in an accident lol.

    About time there’s some pushback on some of this nonsense. There may be hope after all.
    Sorry. There actually is no hope.

    When millions of Americans - not far removed from the Greatest Generation, who made enormous sacrifices - can't be bothered to wear something as simple as a mask in public places to save the life and health of their fellow citizens, and they even take to calling such minor requirements "slavery" and "talismans of oppression"....there actually is no hope.

Similar Threads

  1. "DEMENTIA JOE" GIVES TOXIC "CRITICAL RACE THEORY" THE GREEN LIGHT
    By Dachshund in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-22-2021, 06:09 PM
  2. Unconstitutional "presidents" and "judges"
    By FUCK THE POLICE in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-01-2017, 04:25 PM
  3. "Unconstitutional" Coast Guard saves most of crew, 1 still missing
    By Guns Guns Guns in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-30-2012, 08:42 AM
  4. Utah city's "free-speech zones" challenged as unconstitutional
    By Don Quixote in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-12-2012, 10:06 PM
  5. Are Social Security "Privitization" Schemes Unconstitutional?
    By Bonestorm in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 206
    Last Post: 02-09-2011, 07:42 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •