Started By
Message
0
Posted on 4/10/20 at 11:08 am to Robot Santa
So when the NYC locks up a violator in a jail full of other inmates, that's reasonable?
What happened to freedom of association?
This country is beyond fukked.
What happened to freedom of association?
This country is beyond fukked.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 11:11 am to TideWarrior
quote:
would guess for every person that has been tested positive that it could an additional 4 or 5 that are also positive.
Agree but I think that number jumps to 1 out of 25 or even more in NY, LA where they have been pleading with people for weeks to not go out to get tested unless in very bad condition.
I know about 30 people who vary likely have/had it -- meaning close exposure to a positive tested person and then sick to varying degrees with exact symptoms.
Only 1 of those 30 (a friend who was older and sadly has passed away) were tested.
Rest of them quarantined at home.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 11:12 am to LovetheLord
quote:
We need to go back into society and meet those people with whom we disagree and realize that they are people who have, as Morrisey once said, “Loves and hates and passions just like mine.” Might I add, they have value in God’s eyes.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 11:13 am to RollTide4Ever
quote:
So when the NYC locks up a violator in a jail full of other inmates, that's reasonable?
What? Of course it's reasonable to put someone who has committed a crime in jail.
quote:
What happened to freedom of association?
Nothing. There are just a very narrow set of circumstances, this being one of them, where government action can legally infringe on your constitutional rights.
quote:
This country is beyond fukked.
It certainly is, but it isn't because of state governments telling people they can't go to certain events or businesses for a couple of months while there is an incredibly infectious disease running through the population.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 11:16 am to Robot Santa
Don't get me wrong, I'm enjoying these governors finally realizing they can act on their own. I'd rather have this (ala Articles of Confederation) than the top-down b.s. we've had for a long time.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 11:24 am to The Spleen
quote:
Did my post come across angry? It shouldn't have as I'm in a pretty great mood this morning. I just wanted some clarification on the rules going forward so I don't get crossways with the moderator(s), nor do I want my opinions to hurt anyone's feelings. I've had some pretty mean things said about me the past couple of days I guess because I hurt some feelings.
I am not sure of the rules.
But I bet passive aggressive statements such as this that posters falsely assume are intelligent and/or clever with the clear intention of creating a confrontational response may be more of an issue that someone political leanings.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 11:43 am to The Spleen
quote:
I've had some pretty mean things said about me the past couple of days I guess because I hurt some feelings.
It's hilarious how important you think you are.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 11:46 am to The Spleen
quote:
I've had some pretty mean things said about me the past couple of days I guess because I hurt some feelings.
Holy shite, you sound like a High School Girl
Posted on 4/10/20 at 11:46 am to RollTide4Ever
quote:
These stay orders are unconstitutional. Come at me.
The test is always are they reasonable. To decide that, the court usually uses a test that says the law/restriction must be narrowly tailored to fit a compelling interest. Most all of the stay at home orders (like Alabama's) are not stay at home orders at all. They're "We really, Really, REALLY, REALLY want you to stay home and here are a few things you for sure cannot do orders." The media to a person and a lot of the public freaks out over a name, but in fact the restrictions fit that narrowly tailored requirement pretty well with the clear goal being to keep crowds down for a short period of time to limit the spread of the virus.
Now, there are situations that are about to get interesting. The Michigan governor just issued an order that said people cannot go visit a friend, so if you're a grown adult in an intimate relationship with another grown adult but aren't married or cohabiting sucks to be you. No visiting that significant other. I really doubt that would stand up to a court challenge. The other would be if they try to extend these for a couple of months in states that don't have big outbreaks.
Edited to add: After Warrior mentioned it upthread, I read up on the federal court case filed where some NC coastal county barred out-of-state homeowners from relocating to their second home. My prediction is that they are going to win spectacularly.
This post was edited on 4/10/20 at 11:59 am
Posted on 4/10/20 at 11:53 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
It's hilarious how important you think you are.
prevatt33b is unsurpassed in that regard. 
Posted on 4/10/20 at 12:50 pm to The Spleen
The Washington model has now dropped Alabama’s death total projection from 630 to 430 by August
Posted on 4/10/20 at 12:57 pm to 1BamaRTR
quote:
Researchers in California have a new finger prick test that will draw a blood sample and check the antibodies to determine if a person had COVID-19 and are now immune.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 1:04 pm to JustGetItRight
Which side will win? I am watching this with considerable interest as a similar suit has been filed by Mike Huckabee and some others down on 30A where the county closed the beaches and Huckabee et al are claiming they are infringing upon his property rights which extend down to the mean high water line.
As for the throwing people in jail post, I'd say house arrest is much more appropriate and the preferable way the courts should handle violators.
As for the throwing people in jail post, I'd say house arrest is much more appropriate and the preferable way the courts should handle violators.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 1:22 pm to phil4bama
quote:
Which side will win? I am watching this with considerable interest as a similar suit has been filed by Mike Huckabee and some others down on 30A where the county closed the beaches and Huckabee et al are claiming they are infringing upon his property rights which extend down to the mean high water line.
Under what theory? Eminent domain? Nuisance?
There is no way Huckabee rents his vacation house out when he isn't staying in it, so aside from "I want to go sit on my private beach but instead I have to remain on my private beachfront deck", I'm not exactly sure what damages he is going to allege. I assume he's pursuing it as an interference with his use and enjoyment of his property, but he is suffering no loss in property value nor is there anything unreasonable about a temporary beach closure.
This post was edited on 4/10/20 at 1:25 pm
Posted on 4/10/20 at 1:35 pm to Robot Santa
Posted on 4/10/20 at 1:37 pm to FairhopeTider
That is exactly what he is claiming; loss of use.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 1:43 pm to phil4bama
I don't see how he is going to prevail on something like that given the fact that the restrictions are temporary and he can't prove any sort of damages. It's like suing the county every time a double red flag was put up.
This post was edited on 4/10/20 at 1:44 pm
Posted on 4/10/20 at 1:46 pm to FairhopeTider
Yeah I have an aunt who owns a place down there, and I remember her telling me about all that. I'm pretty sure Huckabee and friends actually won that one. The last time I was down there there were all kinds of signs directing the riff raff to move along off of really wide stretches of beach that appeared to be owned by some of the big neighborhood HOAs.
Posted on 4/10/20 at 1:51 pm to phil4bama
quote:
Which side will win? I am watching this with considerable interest as a similar suit has been filed by Mike Huckabee and some others down on 30A where the county closed the beaches and Huckabee et al are claiming they are infringing upon his property rights which extend down to the mean high water line.
There are two different issues.
I strongly suspect that the folks suing in North Carolina because they're being denied the right to occupy a home they own are going to win. They're being denied the right to travel freely between the states for no reason than "y'all ain't from around here, is ya?" There's case law dating from the 1820s to the 1990s that says that's not allowed.
I haven't read up on Huckabee's suit (totally unrelated aside - his place is on Blue Mountain and is VERY nice. My wife's old boss has a place a few doors down). If he's suing because the state told him he can't go down to the beach right now and thus depriving him of his property, well that's true but again the state can do that if their actions are narrowly crafted to meet a compelling public need. He's probably going to lose.
This post was edited on 4/10/20 at 1:55 pm
Page 104 of 162
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News