Preserve, protect and defend

[kazoolaw]

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 8:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The Supreme Court, Justice Kavanaugh concurring:

I agree with the District Court and the applicants that
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exceeded
its existing statutory authority by issuing a nationwide
eviction moratorium.
***
In my view, clear and specific congressional authorization
(via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend
the moratorium past July 31.

President Biden:

“I can't guarantee you the court won’t rule that we don't have that authority, but at least we'll have the ability to, if we have to appeal, to keep this going for a month. At least. I hope longer.”

Question: Is relying on the time it will take to rule a new CDC moratorium is unconstitutional preserving, protecting or defending the US Constitution?

[Chuck Naill]

This is how a democracy works with checks and balances. If you are in a position of leadership and you want to do something for others, you'll try something and if it does not work, you'll try something else. It is human nature to keep on trying. Sometimes you need a hammer and sometimes a feather. Hopefully someone is in office who understands the difference.

[dneal]

Trump comment in 3,2,1…

[dneal]

This is how a democracy works with checks and balances. If you are in a position of leadership and you want to do something for others, you'll try something and if it does not work, you'll try something else. It is human nature to keep on trying. Sometimes you need a hammer and sometimes a feather. Hopefully someone is in office who understands the difference.

I’m not sure the current guy understands the difference between ice cream and sprinkles. You know, the thing, man…

[Chuck Naill]

This is how a democracy works with checks and balances. If you are in a position of leadership and you want to do something for others, you'll try something and if it does not work, you'll try something else. It is human nature to keep on trying. Sometimes you need a hammer and sometimes a feather. Hopefully someone is in office who understands the difference.

I’m not sure the current guy understands the difference between ice cream and sprinkles. You know, the thing, man…

Thank you, I was needing something you wrote to make a point. Next time you whine about me not discussing a topic, please refer back to your response here...LOL!!

[dneal]

Why in the world would I want to discuss anything with you, Chuck? As long as you believe a half-assed assertion is the same as a rational argument, there's no point.

You ignore posts, you regurgitate woke talking points, there's no original thought. It's kind of sad, actually.

I'm happy to disagree. I'm happy to have civil conversations. I'm happy to pop in and laugh at you guys and point out your ridiculousness and hypocrisy.

I don't whine about you discussing or not discussing a topic. I point out that you are unable to follow along, and you post your weird shit haphazardly; regardless of the topic. Hell, I didn't even get my post typed before you implied Trump. You were faster than my 3 sec countdown. Color me surprised.

Lastly, it's telling that you ignore kazoolaw and jump straight to the personal attacks. But I'm the asshole...

[Chuck Naill]

Why in the world would I want to discuss anything with you, Chuck? As long as you believe a half-assed assertion is the same as a rational argument, there's no point.

You ignore posts, you regurgitate woke talking points, there's no original thought. It's kind of sad, actually.

I'm happy to disagree. I'm happy to have civil conversations. I'm happy to pop in and laugh at you guys and point out your ridiculousness and hypocrisy.

I don't whine about you discussing or not discussing a topic. I point out that you are unable to follow along, and you post your weird shit haphazardly; regardless of the topic. Hell, I didn't even get my post typed before you implied Trump. You were faster than my 3 sec countdown. Color me surprised.

Lastly, it's telling that you ignore kazoolaw and jump straight to the personal attacks. But I'm the asshole...

We agree, you are a ass with a hole.

Yes, you are a whinney butt, cry baby, little man with a insecuritly problem, but that's not the topic....LOL!!

You wouldn't know a conversation if it smacked the shit out out of you pie hole.

[dneal]

*yawn*

Even your put downs are sad. “whinney butt”? Are you 12?

[Chuck Naill]

*yawn*

Even your put downs are sad. “whinney butt”? Are you 12?

I'm 13.

[kazoolaw]

This is how a democracy works with checks and balances. If you are in a position of leadership and you want to do something for others, you'll try something and if it does not work, you'll try something else. It is human nature to keep on trying. Sometimes you need a hammer and sometimes a feather. Hopefully someone is in office who understands the difference.

CN-

Of course you do understand that when the President usurps the role of the Legislature (again) and the Supreme Court says his action is unconstitutional that the President's action goes around the checks and balances carefully provided for in the Constitution.

Understanding the difference? With Biden you have two choices: he doesn't know or he doesn't care. His statements indicate he knows, and has a callous disregard for his oath of office.

He'd be better off just picking one scoop or two, plain or waffle cone.

[kazoolaw]

"The case has been thoroughly briefed before us—twice. And careful review of that record makes clear that the applicants are virtually certain to succeed on the merits of their argument that the CDC has exceeded its authority. It would be one thing if Congress had specifically authorized the action that the CDC has taken. But that has not happened. Instead, the CDC has imposed a nationwide moratorium on evictions in reliance on a decades-old statute that authorizes it to implement measures like fumigation and pest extermination. It strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the CDC the sweeping authority that it asserts." (emphasis added) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf

Presidential fail.

[Chuck Naill]

This is how a democracy works with checks and balances. If you are in a position of leadership and you want to do something for others, you'll try something and if it does not work, you'll try something else. It is human nature to keep on trying. Sometimes you need a hammer and sometimes a feather. Hopefully someone is in office who understands the difference.

CN-

Of course you do understand that when the President usurps the role of the Legislature (again) and the Supreme Court says his action is unconstitutional that the President's action goes around the checks and balances carefully provided for in the Constitution.

Understanding the difference? With Biden you have two choices: he doesn't know or he doesn't care. His statements indicate he knows, and has a callous disregard for his oath of office.

He'd be better off just picking one scoop or two, plain or waffle cone.

Biden has a history of thinking about the common man. It is in his DNA and one of the reasons I feel I can trust him. One man's "usurping" is another man cirriculum vitae.

[Chuck Naill]

"The case has been thoroughly briefed before us—twice. And careful review of that record makes clear that the applicants are virtually certain to succeed on the merits of their argument that the CDC has exceeded its authority. It would be one thing if Congress had specifically authorized the action that the CDC has taken. But that has not happened. Instead, the CDC has imposed a nationwide moratorium on evictions in reliance on a decades-old statute that authorizes it to implement measures like fumigation and pest extermination. It strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the CDC the sweeping authority that it asserts." (emphasis added) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf

Presidential fail.


Nah, he's just trying to help, Kaz.

[dneal]

This is how a democracy works with checks and balances. If you are in a position of leadership and you want to do something for others, you'll try something and if it does not work, you'll try something else. It is human nature to keep on trying. Sometimes you need a hammer and sometimes a feather. Hopefully someone is in office who understands the difference.

CN-

Of course you do understand that when the President usurps the role of the Legislature (again) and the Supreme Court says his action is unconstitutional that the President's action goes around the checks and balances carefully provided for in the Constitution.

Understanding the difference? With Biden you have two choices: he doesn't know or he doesn't care. His statements indicate he knows, and has a callous disregard for his oath of office.

He'd be better off just picking one scoop or two, plain or waffle cone.

Biden has a history of thinking about the common man. It is in his DNA and one of the reasons I feel I can trust him. One man's "usurping" is another man cirriculum vitae.

Curious. Whose ‘94 crime bill resulted in a 60% black and latino prison population? Who bragged about that bill, claiming the Democratic Party was for “60 new death penalties”? “70 enhanced sentences”? “100,000 new cops”? “125,000 new prison cells”?

Whose crime bill sent Alice Johnson to prison for life?

[Chuck Naill]

Who fired the air traffic controllers?

I guess I can play what about this as well…😂😂😂

[kazoolaw]

Only if your helping to tear down a constitutional republic.

[kazoolaw]

Biden has a history of thinking about the common man. It is in his DNA and one of the reasons I feel I can trust him. One man's "usurping" is another man cirriculum vitae.


The common man he calls fat, and a lying dog-face pony soldier? Do you even know what that means?
Joe Usurper is the insurrectionist. It's in his resume is it? Funny, don't remember the Democrat party platform including tearing down the Constitution.

[Chuck Naill]

Biden has a history of thinking about the common man. It is in his DNA and one of the reasons I feel I can trust him. One man's "usurping" is another man cirriculum vitae.


The common man he calls fat, and a lying dog-face pony soldier? Do you even know what that means?
Joe Usurper is the insurrectionist. It's in his resume is it? Funny, don't remember the Democrat party platform including tearing down the Constitution.


Do I need to know? Is this about what you know that I don't know? Are there things I know that you don't? Does sharing ideas and concepts even register with you? Is you intent to pretend to be the smartest person in the room? I haven't a clue and at this point don't care.

Biden or Trump would never be my pick. I voted for McCain and Romnet, never Obama. Those were men who said things that truly didn't defind their character, the same as you and I have done I suspect.

This is a crazy aweful time to lead because of the American history that has caused the fragmentation in our society. As one op-ed writer said, you can't lead where you consider half the electorate bad people. You can't lead by not telling the truth about what it means to be African American, or brown, or female, or various sexual orientations. You cannot lead by pretending these things don't matter.

Old me sit around and talk about the "good old days" as if everyone had them.

For me, Biden was the best of two poor choices.

If you are so concerned about the Constitution you would have had a different reaction to Trump's January 6th speech. THere is plently un-Constitutional material to consider including trying to overturn a democratic election. This tells me you are not really that concerned.

[dneal]

Who fired the air traffic controllers?

I guess I can play what about this as well…😂😂😂

I know. I led you down a road that contradicted your stated belief and at the end presented you with the fact of your boogeyman pardoning the poor black woman, sent to prison for life by the guy who happens to be the current president.

Your complete deflection was entirely expected, and you impressively maintained your appearance of irrationality in the process. Well done.

[kazoolaw]

You did grasp the point: Biden has no particular regard for the common man.

[dneal]

I never knew 81 million people could be so quiet.

[TSherbs]

For me, Biden was the best of two poor choices. Biden was a grade C choice. Trump was an F.


If you are so concerned about the Constitution you would have had a different reaction to Trump's January 6th speech. THere is plently un-Constitutional material to consider including trying to overturn a democratic election. This tells me you are not really that concerned. Whispers of unconstitutionality with Joe are frivolous.

[Chuck Naill]

I never knew 81 million people could be so quiet.
Troll 😂😂

[kazoolaw]

I never knew 81 million people could be so quiet.
Troll 😂😂

No, I think many citizens neither understand nor care about the Constitutional balance of power.

[Chuck Naill]

Do you think Trump cares, Kaz? Really, be honest.

[kazoolaw]

Do you have a specific instance in mind?

[Chuck Naill]

Do you have a specific instance in mind?


His often mentioned Jan 6 speech. I've posted this so many times. If you haven't read, you should so you know from which I speak.

So, I am not posting something someone said he said. I am posted a transcript of what he actually said. Are you intentionally ignoring?

[kazoolaw]

Apple, meet orange.

[Chuck Naill]

You asked for evidence and you responded as you usually do. Sad!!

In that speech Trump blamed others for not doing his will, wanted Pence to do something he could not do, and vilified anyone he saw as against him. As a result, the insurrectionists were chanting "hang Pence". Some of them said they were doing what they thought Trump wanted. If you have read the transcript, would it be possible they misunderstood? There were deaths on January 6. There were racial slurrs said. It all seems so obvious. I bet in your private thoughts you fully understand and agree with what I am saying, but you can't admit it here.

Didn't he say the insurrectionists with peaceful and great people?

Didn't he say he would march with the insurrectionists and then said later he didn't mean it literally?

Is Trump someone you would trust if your life depended on it?

[kazoolaw]

No, I'll not feed your obsession.

[dneal]

Is Trump someone you would trust if your life depended on it?

You would have to ask those people that got left in Afghanistan…

[Chuck Naill]

Is Trump someone you would trust if your life depended on it?

You would have to ask those people that got left in Afghanistan…

So, no you wouldn't since he brokered the deal with terrorists.

[dneal]

Is Trump someone you would trust if your life depended on it?

You would have to ask those people that got left in Afghanistan…

So, no you wouldn't since he brokered the deal with terrorists.

Trump is no longer the President, and Biden is as free to renegotiate whatever he wants with the Taliban as he is to rejoin the Paris Climate Accords or the UN Arms Treaty.

Yes, were I an American citizen left stranded in Afghanistan by the sitting President, I’d take my chances with the guy who tweets mean stuff. You would be sitting there like a California school teacher, glad the orange one is gone as the Taliban cut your head off.

[Chuck Naill]

Is Trump someone you would trust if your life depended on it?

You would have to ask those people that got left in Afghanistan…

So, no you wouldn't since he brokered the deal with terrorists.

Trump is no longer the President, and Biden is as free to renegotiate whatever he wants with the Taliban as he is to rejoin the Paris Climate Accords or the UN Arms Treaty.

Yes, were I an American citizen left stranded in Afghanistan by the sitting President, I’d take my chances with the guy who tweets mean stuff. You would be sitting there like a California school teacher, glad the orange one is gone as the Taliban cut your head off.

In life, we must sometimes clean up messes rather than have the freedom to make our own. Holding Biden solely responsible just makes people appear uninformed. However, if your looking for a reason, this one is as good as another. 👍👍

[dneal]

Who had 7 months to correct Trump's supposedly horrible negotiations?

Who left Americans in Afghanistan? School teachers and students (why they were there is inexplicable, but those are Californians for you).

Sorry buddy, the current guy and his admin fucked it up; not the Orange guy.

[Chuck Naill]

How would the Trump deal have been altered? When you open the door, it’s hard to shut.

[dneal]

How would the Trump deal have been altered? When you open the door, it’s hard to shut.

How was Paris Climate altered? By the order of the fucking President. The previous guy had no problem slamming that door and not giving it a second thought.

But here's a quick lesson on international negotiations 101. When you have the world's most powerful military, you can alter any deal you want. See: Machiavelli

Who is President now? Who has been President since January?

[dneal]

Now let's get back on topic, at least until Chuck wanders in babbling more unrelated nonsense.

A few days ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the CDC's new moratorium order exceeded executive authority. Dems are still trying to wiggle around it (to include the President, apparently).

"The courts have decided", right? The current President appears to not respect that when it doesn't work his way.

https://www.jurist.org/news/2021/08/scotus-strikes-eviction-moratorium/

[Chuck Naill]

How would the Trump deal have been altered? When you open the door, it’s hard to shut.

How was Paris Climate altered? By the order of the fucking President. The previous guy had no problem slamming that door and not giving it a second thought.

But here's a quick lesson on international negotiations 101. When you have the world's most powerful military, you can alter any deal you want. See: Machiavelli

Who is President now? Who has been President since January?

Not the same and sorry you can’t tell the difference.
The Paris accord was a previously held alliance. It was simply going back and taking your seat at the table.

Trump and Pompeo chose to leave Afghanistan out and broker a deal with terrorists. I have no idea how Biden could have backed out and undid what had taken place after Trump’s deal.

[dneal]

How would the Trump deal have been altered? When you open the door, it’s hard to shut.

How was Paris Climate altered? By the order of the fucking President. The previous guy had no problem slamming that door and not giving it a second thought.

But here's a quick lesson on international negotiations 101. When you have the world's most powerful military, you can alter any deal you want. See: Machiavelli

Who is President now? Who has been President since January?

Not the same and sorry you can’t tell the difference.
The Paris accord was a previously held alliance. It was simply going back and taking your seat at the table.

Trump and Pompeo chose to leave Afghanistan out and broker a deal with terrorists. I have no idea how Biden could have backed out and undid what had taken place after Trump’s deal.

Please explain how it's not the same, since I "can't tell the difference".

Neither Trump nor Pompeo have been in office since January. Biden has. The band of misfits had forces ON THE GROUND in Afghanistan. Kandahar, Herat, Kabul, etc... He could have done anything he wanted - except (according to your) renege on an initial deal with terrorists... which meant he had to shut the lights off and abandon Americans. I'm not sure which is a more stupid position for you to take. It kind of reminds me of how Trump was simultaneously an evil sooper-genius and a moron (which is what you guys said about Bush, and Reagan, and... hmmm, maybe that's overused by your team.)

--edit--

p.s.: You do know how treaties work, right? The process for the U.S. to be bound to one, in particular. Hint: The President can't do it.

[Chuck Naill]

I never said Trump was a genius or a moron. He is many things that no parent would wish on their child.

I do know who chose to deal not with American allies in place. For whatever reason. It was not done by Biden. He is many things, but he wasn’t in charge at that time .

[dneal]

I never said Trump was a genius or a moron.

Curious. What did I say that prompted this response? Maybe this? "It kind of reminds me..."

Yes, I see now that clearly is saying you said Trump was a genius (or moron)... *rolleyes*

[Empty_of_Clouds]

How would the Trump deal have been altered? When you open the door, it’s hard to shut.

But here's a quick lesson on international negotiations 101. When you have the world's most powerful military, you can alter any deal you want. See: Machiavelli


The alternative, if the other side doesn't agree to the alteration of any deal, is a return to another 20 years of inconclusive conflict. That's how good the 'world's most powerful military' was in Afghanistan, to say nothing of Vietnam or Korea (to name just 2 similar conflicts).

[dneal]

False dichotomy, and completely misses the point.

We could have stayed in Afghanistan as long as we wanted. We could have killed every man, woman and child if we wanted. Guaranteed to eliminate the violence that way.

The point though, is that the U.S. is more than capable militarily of securing things long enough to evacuate citizens first, and that isn't even counting the allies (although to be honest, the Turks are the only ones I'd want with me in a fight. The rest of you are useless.) Anyway, maybe we could even tell our allies that we're sneaking out in the middle of the night, so they aren't in the same boat with citizens scattered across the country. How exactly are NATO relations going with Biden again?

Nice try with the baiting at the end though.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Yeah, that's why it was 20 years of inconclusive conflict.

[dneal]

Yeah, that's why it was 20 years of inconclusive conflict.

Well, you're tenacious.

Note for Tsherbs - This (EoC's posts) is trolling.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Hardly trolling, just reiterating the point that in 20 years the 'world's most powerful military' was unable to achieve any kind of significant victory.


We could have stayed in Afghanistan as long as we wanted. We could have killed every man, woman and child if we wanted. Guaranteed to eliminate the violence that way.

Every problem is a nail, eh?

[Chuck Naill]

I never said Trump was a genius or a moron.

Curious. What did I say that prompted this response? Maybe this? "It kind of reminds me..."

Yes, I see now that clearly is saying you said Trump was a genius (or moron)... *rolleyes*

" I'm not sure which is a more stupid position for you to take. It kind of reminds me of how Trump was simultaneously an evil sooper-genius and a moron (which is what you guys said about Bush, and Reagan, and... hmmm, maybe that's overused by your team.)"

[TSherbs]

Yeah, that's why it was 20 years of inconclusive conflict.

Well, you're tenacious.

Note for Tsherbs - This (EoC's posts) is trolling.

No, that is far from trolling. Whatever you think "could have" been done, EOC is simply pointing out how little was actually accomplished: 20 years of inconclusive embroilment. You pretty much said the same thing in your posts (when you were on topic and not mocking someone).

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[dneal]

I never said Trump was a genius or a moron.

Curious. What did I say that prompted this response? Maybe this? "It kind of reminds me..."

Yes, I see now that clearly is saying you said Trump was a genius (or moron)... *rolleyes*

" I'm not sure which is a more stupid position for you to take. It kind of reminds me of how Trump was simultaneously an evil sooper-genius and a moron (which is what you guys said about Bush, and Reagan, and... hmmm, maybe that's overused by your team.)"

I was speaking of the general “you”, but fair point.

[kazoolaw]

Hardly trolling, just reiterating the point that in 20 years the 'world's most powerful military' was unable to achieve any kind of significant victory.

Every problem is a nail, eh?
Still won't distinguish between the 20 year campaign and the abject failure to effect an orderly withdrawal, and leave no citizen or ally behind?
Every post a swing and amiss.

[dneal]

Yeah, that's why it was 20 years of inconclusive conflict.

Well, you're tenacious.

Note for Tsherbs - This (EoC's posts) is trolling.

No, that is far from trolling. Whatever you think "could have" been done, EOC is simply pointing out how little was actually accomplished: 20 years of inconclusive embroilment. You pretty much said the same thing in your posts (when you were on topic and not mocking someone).

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Nope. What did he reiterate, and why?

If you can’t see it, it’s probably why I can troll you and EoC can’t troll me.

—edit—

The nebulous rules are amusing though. I’m pretty sure EoC was arguing that if one misunderstood a post, the fault lied with the writer. Does that only work one way? It seems to change when he’s the writer.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I’m pretty sure EoC was arguing that if one misunderstood a post, the fault lied with the writer. Does that only work one way? It seems to change when he’s the writer.

And you are of course dead wrong. I suggested that misunderstanding may be the result of poorly written statements. It is a foolish individual indeed who believes that everything they write is without ambiguity or open to misinterpretation. Fairly sure some of what I write is interpreted by others differently than what I intended. You though are supremely confident that nothing you write could be so misinterpreted. That's a very arrogant position to take, and one not borne out by some of the responses you get here. Of course all those responses must be wrong, according to you.

https://i.imgur.com/H16A5F9l.jpg

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Hardly trolling, just reiterating the point that in 20 years the 'world's most powerful military' was unable to achieve any kind of significant victory.

Every problem is a nail, eh?
Still won't distinguish between the 20 year campaign and the abject failure to effect an orderly withdrawal, and leave no citizen or ally behind?
Every post a swing and amiss.

And indeed you have swung and missed.

I was replying to a twig of this thread where a statement was made about the apparent power of the US military to get any outcome it desired - which is evidentially not the case. In no manner was I addressing the current withdrawal thing in those responses. My apologies if you found that unclear.

[TSherbs]

Yeah, that's why it was 20 years of inconclusive conflict.

Well, you're tenacious.

Note for Tsherbs - This (EoC's posts) is trolling.

No, that is far from trolling. Whatever you think "could have" been done, EOC is simply pointing out how little was actually accomplished: 20 years of inconclusive embroilment. You pretty much said the same thing in your posts (when you were on topic and not mocking someone).

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Nope. What did he reiterate, and why?

If you can’t see it, it’s probably why I can troll you and EoC can’t troll me.

—edit—

The nebulous rules are amusing though. I’m pretty sure EoC was arguing that if one misunderstood a post, the fault lied with the writer. Does that only work one way? It seems to change when he’s the writer.You "can troll" people here because there is no moderation to ban you. You do it because you like it and you've found a place where you can pick on a few targets with moderation impunity. It would be an act of hubris to suggest any other motive or dynamic.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[dneal]

I’m pretty sure EoC was arguing that if one misunderstood a post, the fault lied with the writer. Does that only work one way? It seems to change when he’s the writer.

And you are of course dead wrong. I suggested that misunderstanding may be the result of poorly written statements. It is a foolish individual indeed who believes that everything they write is without ambiguity or open to misinterpretation. Fairly sure some of what I write is interpreted by others differently than what I intended. You though are supremely confident that nothing you write could be so misinterpreted. That's a very arrogant position to take, and one not borne out by some of the responses you get here. Of course all those responses must be wrong, according to you.

https://i.imgur.com/H16A5F9l.jpg

You suggested it when kazoolaw cornered you, for your benefit. You aren’t fooling anyone. I’ve been here through many of your name (and personality?) changes over the years. You are just in your high and mighty mode now. That’ll change.

I am as consistent as ever. Wanna be a dick? Let’s go. Want to have a reasonable discussion? Cool.

I have tried many times with you, only to be disappointed. Stop pretending.

[TSherbs]

I’m pretty sure EoC was arguing that if one misunderstood a post, the fault lied with the writer. Does that only work one way? It seems to change when he’s the writer.

And you are of course dead wrong. I suggested that misunderstanding may be the result of poorly written statements. It is a foolish individual indeed who believes that everything they write is without ambiguity or open to misinterpretation. Fairly sure some of what I write is interpreted by others differently than what I intended. You though are supremely confident that nothing you write could be so misinterpreted. That's a very arrogant position to take, and one not borne out by some of the responses you get here. Of course all those responses must be wrong, according to you.

https://i.imgur.com/H16A5F9l.jpg

You suggested it when kazoolaw cornered you, for your benefit. You aren’t fooling anyone. I’ve been here through many of your name (and personality?) changes over the years. You are just in your high and mighty mode now. That’ll change.

I am as consistent as ever. Wanna be a dick? Let’s go. Want to have a reasonable discussion? Cool.

I have tried many times with you, only to be disappointed. Stop pretending.Always the dick yourself, though. It's kind of sick what you do. You mistreat them verbally, then suggest to them that they can have your nice side if they treat you right and play by your rules. It's a pattern of abuse. It's why I tell you to fuck off. You mistreat people here, and you get pleasure from it. You even brag about it. You even use it to threaten people with your dickishness. Well, so EOC doesn't "fool you". Well you don't fool me.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[dneal]

You guys can’t stay on topic to save your lives.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Wouldn't worry about it too much, TSherbs. Look at the type of language is being used. Confrontational, appeals for personal approval, insults direct and indirect, attempts to intimidate, threats. It piles on in almost every post, and serves no purpose in moving discussion forward. I guess that's not the purpose though. Even when I say I honestly didn't get the intent of a statement I've just read, I get beaten with that. Any opportunity to attack, no effort made to build bridges to mutual understanding.

Being a dick appears to be his core characteristic.


So, in the spirit of trying to understand, dneal what exactly do you think I'm pretending to be? I'll wait. :)

[dneal]

Wouldn't worry about it too much, TSherbs. Look at the type of language is being used. Confrontational, appeals for personal approval, insults direct and indirect, attempts to intimidate, threats. It piles on in almost every post, and serves no purpose in moving discussion forward. I guess that's not the purpose though. Even when I say I honestly didn't get the intent of a statement I've just read, I get beaten with that. Any opportunity to attack, no effort made to build bridges to mutual understanding.

Being a dick appears to be his core characteristic.


So, in the spirit of trying to understand, dneal what exactly do you think I'm pretending to be? I'll wait. :)

Hello pot, I’m kettle.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Indeed. I am as consistent as ever. Wanna be a dick? Let’s go. Want to have a reasonable discussion? Cool.

[Chuck Naill]

I never said Trump was a genius or a moron.

Curious. What did I say that prompted this response? Maybe this? "It kind of reminds me..."

Yes, I see now that clearly is saying you said Trump was a genius (or moron)... *rolleyes*

" I'm not sure which is a more stupid position for you to take. It kind of reminds me of how Trump was simultaneously an evil sooper-genius and a moron (which is what you guys said about Bush, and Reagan, and... hmmm, maybe that's overused by your team.)"

I was speaking of the general “you”, but fair point.

Well, you wrote “you guys” and then “your team” which is kind of a stretch that you meant something else.

I voted for Reagan, Bush (both) , Romney, McCain, Clinton, and Biden. The last two were voting against Trump. If Liz Cheney, Romney, or John Kasich run or run as independents, I’d be interested.

[dneal]

I never said Trump was a genius or a moron.

Curious. What did I say that prompted this response? Maybe this? "It kind of reminds me..."

Yes, I see now that clearly is saying you said Trump was a genius (or moron)... *rolleyes*

" I'm not sure which is a more stupid position for you to take. It kind of reminds me of how Trump was simultaneously an evil sooper-genius and a moron (which is what you guys said about Bush, and Reagan, and... hmmm, maybe that's overused by your team.)"

I was speaking of the general “you”, but fair point.

Well, you wrote “you guys” and then “your team” which is kind of a stretch that you meant something else.

I voted for Reagan, Bush (both) , Romney, McCain, Clinton, and Biden. The last two were voting against Trump. If Liz Cheney, Romney, or John Kasich run or run as independents, I’d be interested.

I conceded your point. You got a first down. Why are you still arguing about it?

[Chuck Naill]

Not sure if this belongs here,
“ Mr. Chansley, who had appeared in his shaman costume at several pro-Trump rallies before Jan. 6, was also one of the first defendants to blame Mr. Trump for his own behavior at the riot”.

[Chuck Naill]

“Jacob Chansley, who stormed onto the Senate floor in face paint and a horned hat, accepted a deal under which federal prosecutors will recommend a sentence of 41 to 51 months in prison.”

[Chuck Naill]

That’s a long time for your service to Trump. If DT gets elected again, maybe he’ll be pardoned.

[kazoolaw]

Biden on constitutionality:
"this...law blatantly violates the constitutional right established under Roe vs. Wade...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/09/01/statement-by-president-joe-biden-on-texas-law-sb8/
Does this statement align with the Biden quote in Post 1?

[Chuck Naill]

Yes

[kazoolaw]

Yes

How so?

[Chuck Naill]

Yes

How so?


Precedent!

[kazoolaw]

Does it matter to the question if there is no constitutional right to perform abortions?

[Chuck Naill]

Abortion is legal and so the right to perform is legal.

[kazoolaw]

Would you say, then, that Biden's comments are much ado about nothing?

[Chuck Naill]

If abortion is Constituional and Biden is sworn to uphold the Constituon, then he has more than a passing preference. It is very likely he is pro life like me.

I have very little understanding about legal matters, but I do know Stare decisis is how judges rule. Of course, challenges are possible and Biden was trying the law in order to help people. I do not think challenging the law is unconstituional. If you were to get a divorce, most likely how the judge would rule would follow precedent, but you could challage that precedent if you had evidence for why it could not be followed.

In the case of abortion, most US citizens probably want to have abortion legal. For Texas to do what they did goes against also how the SCOTUS has moved in the past. Also, in 1973 decision hinged on the unborn not being human and thus was not protected by the 14th Ammendment. Medical science has advanced and we know that a newly fertilized egg has it's own DNA. If you rememerber Scott Peterson, he was convicted of murdering his wife and unborn child. Abortion is a messy issue. Rather than try to overturn the law, I have alway thought informed consent to a better option and for adoption to be more easy. And, I have read that under Obama and Biden abortions were actually less because of the greater availabilty of birth control.

[dneal]

Chuck, there is the problem of Marbury vs Madison. The judiciary has the power to decide what is and isn’t in accordance with the law - The Constitution being the foundation of it. Defending the proper power of the judiciary is defending The Constitution by defending the system it establishes. If kazoolaw is correct in his characterization of The President’s remarks, his conclusion does then follow. Perhaps the approach for the opposition is to attack the characterization. If the assumption is false, it matters not how sound the logic is that follows.

I’ve watched the various sides argue the Texas case, but my understanding is that the Supreme Court only ruled on a motion for a stay (denying it) and the case is still in a lower court.

I have issues with the Texas law’s enforcement, which appears to rely on civil suits rather than criminal actions.

[Chuck Naill]

We know that abortion is legal and we know the Texas action prevents a constitutional right or makes it more difficult. Texas is doing similarly with suffrage rights. So in these instances, the it appears the Constitution is being challenged. How is it wrong for Biden to challenge and the Texas Republicans right. Perhaps that’s my point.

[kazoolaw]

i've been too vague in asking the question.
Regarding the eviction moratorium Biden said he didn't care that it was unconstitutional because it would protect people for a little while, until the Supreme Court overturned it.
Regarding abortion, Biden declared the law is, in his opinion, unconstitutional [though the Supreme Court explicitly did not address that issue] even though it would protect lives as long as it is in effect.

[dneal]

We know that abortion is legal and we know the Texas action prevents a constitutional right or makes it more difficult. Texas is doing similarly with suffrage rights. So in these instances, the it appears the Constitution is being challenged. How is it wrong for Biden to challenge and the Texas Republicans right. Perhaps that’s my point.

Abortion is still legal in Texas. Just not after 6 weeks. While I'm not sure of the practicality of that, and that it will lead to problems (because 6 weeks is often not enough time to recognize pregnancy).

Legal challenges are part of the process, and not necessarily a bad thing. It reinforces some law and overturns other. Without legal challenges, Plessy v Ferguson would still be in force.

[kazoolaw]

"If they’ll not help — if these governors won’t help us beat the pandemic, I’ll use my power as President to get them out of the way. " (emphasis added)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/09/09/remarks-by-president-biden-on-fighting-the-covid-19-pandemic-3/
Given his attitude toward the Constitution what form will getting them out of the way take?

[Chuck Naill]

Ironically, the ones demanding their freedom not to have to get a vaccine are often the ones wanting to control females bodies.

[Chuck Naill]

"If they’ll not help — if these governors won’t help us beat the pandemic, I’ll use my power as President to get them out of the way. " (emphasis added)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/09/09/remarks-by-president-biden-on-fighting-the-covid-19-pandemic-3/
Given his attitude toward the Constitution what form will getting them out of the way take?


You’re using a straw man approach by claiming you know his attitude toward the Constitution. What is he doing that former presidents haven’t also done?

Consider Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation for slaves in 7 Confederate States?

[dneal]

Pssst, Chuck…

that’s not a straw man.

[Chuck Naill]

Sure it is my good friend….😅😂

[dneal]

No Chuck, seriously. It's not.

You identified the right thing, the implication of attitude; but that's an assumption (inductive logic). Prove the assumption false, and it doesn't matter what follows from it. There's maybe a hint of ad hominem sprinkled on there that can be inferred.

Anyway, a straw man is when one characterizes another's argument, and then attacks the characterization they've constructed. Your post is closer to that than Kazoolaw's.

[Chuck Naill]

"The Constitution does not say that the President shall execute the laws, but that “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-3/the-president-as-law-enforcer

This teaches me that when someone says Joe Biden is going against the Constitution, he may not necessarily be. His justice department is going against the state of Texas on their abortion ruling. In light of the above concept, he is simply making sure the laws are faithfully executed give that abortion is legal in the US.

[Chuck Naill]

Since we are discussing the Constitution...
"Mr. Pence told him that the president was convinced that Mr. Pence could throw out the election results in order to keep himself in power.

“Mike, you have no flexibility on this,” Mr. Quayle told Mr. Pence. “None. Zero. Forget it. Put it away.”

“I know, that’s what I’ve been trying to tell Trump,” Mr. Pence said. “But he really thinks he can. And there are other guys in there saying I’ve got this power.”

Mr. Pence then echoed Mr. Trump’s false claims of election fraud. “Well, there’s some stuff out in Arizona,” Mr. Pence said.

“Mike, I live in Arizona,” Mr. Quayle said. “There’s nothing out here.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/14/us/politics/peril-woodward-book-trump.html

[TSherbs]

nevermind

[Chuck Naill]

You’re not the only one unless you’re not reading my posts, my learned friend.

[TSherbs]

You’re not the only one unless you’re not reading my posts, my learned friend.so noted

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[kazoolaw]

"If they’ll not help — if these governors won’t help us beat the pandemic, I’ll use my power as President to get them out of the way. " (emphasis added)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/09/09/remarks-by-president-biden-on-fighting-the-covid-19-pandemic-3/
Given his attitude toward the Constitution what form will getting them out of the way take?


You’re using a straw man approach by claiming you know his attitude toward the Constitution. What is he doing that former presidents haven’t also done?

Not a strawman argument. Heaven knows I've built one or two in the past.

I've given you Biden's exact words, in quotations. He said he would "get them out of the way." What constitutional method does he contemplate using? And no, I don't think Joe will go Tony Soprano on the guvs.

[Chuck Naill]

"If they’ll not help — if these governors won’t help us beat the pandemic, I’ll use my power as President to get them out of the way. " (emphasis added)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/09/09/remarks-by-president-biden-on-fighting-the-covid-19-pandemic-3/
Given his attitude toward the Constitution what form will getting them out of the way take?


You’re using a straw man approach by claiming you know his attitude toward the Constitution. What is he doing that former presidents haven’t also done?

Not a strawman argument. Heaven knows I've built one or two in the past.

I've given you Biden's exact words, in quotations. He said he would "get them out of the way." What constitutional method does he contemplate using? And no, I don't think Joe will go Tony Soprano on the guvs.


He is not acting against the Constitution in both incidents you’ve posted. As President he has powers that allow him to act to preserve and protect.

Where were you when Trumps was sending his poor mindless minions to the capital?

[dneal]

Whataboutism?

[Chuck Naill]

You’re no better at that definition than you were with straw man .

[kazoolaw]

Nah, go ahead, ignore the stay based on "grave statutory and constitutional concerns."
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/06/world/americas/biden-osha-vaccine-mandate-blocked.html

[kazoolaw]

Mandate exceeds government's authority, most likely violates principle of separation of powers, causes irreparable harm to individuals: Fifth Circuit Court Opinion staying vaccine mandate. Another failure to preserve, protect, and defend.

"First, the Mandate likely exceeds the federal government’s authority
under the Commerce Clause because it regulates noneconomic inactivity that
falls squarely within the States’ police power. A person’s choice to remain
unvaccinated and forgo regular testing is noneconomic inactivity."
***
"Second, concerns over separation of powers principles cast doubt over
the Mandate’s assertion of virtually unlimited power to control individual
conduct under the guise of a workplace regulation."
***
"It is clear that a denial of the petitioners’ proposed stay would do them
irreparable harm. For one, the Mandate threatens to substantially burden the
liberty interests of reluctant individual recipients put to a choice between
their job(s) and their jab(s). For the individual petitioners, the loss of
constitutional freedoms “for even minimal periods of
time . . . unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”
BST Holdings vs OHSA
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-60845-CV0.pdf

[Chuck Naill]

Are you for or against a vaccine mandate, Kaz? If against, what rational basis would you suggest?

[dneal]

A rational basis.

64831

[Chip]

I believe that the Pope is exceeding his authority, as the alleged representative of an imaginary deity, in denying reproductive rights to women.

Where do I file a case?

Certainly not in the present Supreme Court.

[Linger]

One generation ago we decided to limit one’s freedom by making drunk driving illegal. Half a generation ago we decided to limit one’s freedom by making smoking in public and work places illegal. Some countries decided to limit one’s freedom by making gun ownership a strictly legally regulated exception rather than a rule. There is plenty of rational basis to limit individual freedom for one if it interferes with the freedom of others. I don’t see any reason why allowing virus particles of a deadly disease to be blown in my face be any different. Freedom comes with responsibility. If you can’t handle that, we take away that freedom.

Edit: typo

[kazoolaw]

One generation ago we decided to limit one’s freedom by making drunk driving illegal. Half a generation ago we decided to limit one’s freedom by making smoking in public and work places illegal. Some countries decided to limit one’s freedom by making gun ownership a strictly legally regulated exception rather than a rule. There is plenty of rational basis to limit individual freedom for one if it interferes with the freedom of others. I don’t see any reason why allowing virus particles of a deadly disease to be blown in my face be any different. Freedom comes with responsibility. If you can’t handle that, we take away that freedom.

Edit: typo

A succinct an outline of the unlimited power of government over individual rights.

Note: there is no logical end to the limitation of individual freedom.

[Chuck Naill]

No one has been able to explain how their freedoms are being restricted. They might complain about physical distancing, masks, and vaccines, but never they their freedoms are being restricted. If you have a job and the employer requires a vaccine, you can refuse. No loss of freedom. Yesterday I sent an email regarding volunteer activities at the hospital. I got a reply that due to COVID-19, they are not fulfilling applications. My freedoms are not being restricted.

Freedom restrictions seem to be more of a rally cry than an issue. The concept that I might disagree with what you said, but would defend you right to say it, is operative. It is ironic that those saying they are loosing their freedoms, still have a voice. That's a good thing.

Of course, some think they should be able to say what they want, but really mean without consequence. Actions have consequences.

I would not want an autocrat running the government. I can take a hypocrit, or a liar, or a cheater, but no autocrats for me. And, a system to flush the toliet for someone who tries needs to be in place. Voting restrictions are a loss of freedom for some that no one seems to consider.

[TSherbs]

Note: there is no logical end to the limitation of individual freedom.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

I see no reason why this assertion is true, in part because "freedom" is neither a logical term nor a logical construct.







Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

... . Voting restrictions are a loss of freedom for some that no one seems to consider.

I consider it.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[kazoolaw]

Note: there is no logical end to the limitation of individual freedom.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

I see no reason why this assertion is true, in part because "freedom" is neither a logical term nor a logical construct.

With all respect, I think that this is a rhetorical flourish.

Given Chuck's argument that loss of a job is no real loss, even when imposed by a government exceeding the power granted to it, where is the end of limitations of freedom logical or otherwise?

[kazoolaw]

No one has been able to explain how their freedoms are being restricted. They might complain about physical distancing, masks, and vaccines, but never they their freedoms are being restricted. If you have a job and the employer requires a vaccine, you can refuse.

Chuck, did you not read the excerpt from the Court opinion or did you not understand it? Especially the part outlining how the government has no authority to enact the mandate as it did, acting as if it had unlimited authority? That's the very definition of "autocrat."

[Chuck Naill]

I did read,’but read as an option. Desperate times require desperate measures. After 700k dead, you’d expect OSHA to respond accordingly and not accidentally.

[TSherbs]

[FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3]With all respect, I think that this is a rhetorical flourish. Somewhat. My point is that "freedom" is not subject to logic. Freedom is a condition (abstract idea), not a logical term or process.


Given Chuck's argument that loss of a job is no real loss, even when imposed by a government exceeding the power granted to it, where is the end of limitations of freedom logical or otherwise?



I dunno. I think it's your job to make an assertion, not just to imply through suggested answers to unanswered questions.

For clarification, are you making the claim that if the govt has ANY power to limit freedom, then this is logically equivalent to giving them ABSOLUTE power to limit ALL freedom? You seem to be suggesting this with your question, but I cannot clearly discern your point.


Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[kazoolaw]

Somewhat. My point is that "freedom" is not subject to logic. Freedom is a condition (abstract idea), not a logical term or process.


Given Chuck's argument that loss of a job is no real loss, even when imposed by a government exceeding the power granted to it, where is the end of limitations of freedom logical or otherwise?



I dunno. I think it's your job to make an assertion, not just to imply through suggested answers to unanswered questions.

For clarification, are you making the claim that if the govt has ANY power to limit freedom, then this is logically equivalent to giving them ABSOLUTE power to limit ALL freedom? You seem to be suggesting this with your question, but I cannot clearly discern your point.


I don't concede that liberty is a "condition" not subject to logic. A whole host of conditions are capable of being considered logically: your medical condition, the weather conditions, road conditions, etc. If you are imprisoned for expressing your opinion it can be said, logically, that your freedom of speech has been denied.

To be clear, Chuck asserts that loss of my job is not loss of liberty. Chuck also asserts that it does not matter that citizens can be deprived of their liberty interest by a government exceeding its constitutional [separation of powers argument] or its legislative[statutory grant of power] authority. If both of those statements are true then, in combination, there is no part of life which the government cannot reach and control simply by exercising power which has not been granted to it.

Asking questions is a recognized learning/teaching method, one which you used in your last paragraph. Nicely done.

[Chuck Naill]

What’s the definition of “assert”. Maybe I didn’t it without opening my mouth!!??

Losing a job is not the loss of liberty. It is actually liberating! Try it.

Losing a job and being in debt is not equivalent to losing a job and being debt free.

Being free of the love of money, power, and the good thoughts of others is liberating.

[TSherbs]

Asking questions is a recognized learning/teaching method, one which you used in your last paragraph. Nicely done.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Not all questions are equivalent, Kazoo.

But back onto the point of logic: of course freedom can be "considered" logically. No one denies this. I said that it wasn't a logical term nor a process of logic.

You seem to be making a slippery slope argument. I take your answer to my question above to be "yes," you are worried that granting the fed gov the power to mandate workplace safety guidelines and to permit termination for noncompliance means that the fed now has unlimited authority.

I do not subscribe to this slippery slope argument, especially not when we already see that states are challenging this authority in the court. No, the fed power is not unlimited. Your absolute claim that you seem to be making is not persuasive "logic" to me (in fact, it is a fallacy of logic in my eyes).


Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Bold2013]

I believe that the Pope is exceeding his authority, as the alleged representative of an imaginary deity, in denying reproductive rights to women.

Where do I file a case?

Certainly not in the present Supreme Court.

The cases will be coming… Restricting women’s rights for the lives of the next generation is something even I can get behind!

[Chuck Naill]

You’d think the white supremacy crowd wouldn’t want all these white babies being aborted.

[TSherbs]

Losing a job is not the loss of liberty.

Work is not a "freedom." That is a conflation of two very different nouns and ideas. This, to me, is not worth debate (disputation).

Again, as I said above, what is the crux here is whether or not the federal govt has the power to institute workplace safety regulations the violation of which can result in termination of employment. I don't know the established law on this well enough to know if only states can do this, but it is clearly acceptable current legal practice to terminate employees for failure to comply with workplace health and safety standards.

[kazoolaw]

Losing a job is not the loss of liberty.

Work is not a "freedom." That is a conflation of two very different nouns and ideas. This, to me, is not worth debate (disputation).

Again, as I said above, what is the crux here is whether or not the federal govt has the power to institute workplace safety regulations the violation of which can result in termination of employment. I don't know the established law on this well enough to know if only states can do this, but it is clearly acceptable current legal practice to terminate employees for failure to comply with workplace health and safety standards.

Suggest you go back and read why the Fifth Circuit stopped the mandate to understand.

[kazoolaw]

Asking questions is a recognized learning/teaching method, one which you used in your last paragraph. Nicely done.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Not all questions are equivalent, Kazoo.

But back onto the point of logic: of course freedom can be "considered" logically. No one denies this. I said that it wasn't a logical term nor a process of logic.

You seem to be making a slippery slope argument. I take your answer to my question above to be "yes," you are worried that granting the fed gov the power to mandate workplace safety guidelines and to permit termination for noncompliance means that the fed now has unlimited authority.

I do not subscribe to this slippery slope argument, especially not when we already see that states are challenging this authority in the court. No, the fed power is not unlimited. Your absolute claim that you seem to be making is not persuasive "logic" to me (in fact, it is a fallacy of logic in my eyes).


Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

And some questions are equivalent; your question and mine are functional equivalents.

If not a logical concept, what do you describe the concept of "freedom" as being.

No, you do not grasp my point, which is a critique of Chuck's position, which is.... Loss of a job, the means of support, is not a loss of liberty. Chuck's view of government is that it can act without regard to constitutional or legislative limits. His view is that there is no part of a person's life which the government can reach out and regulate even if in doing so it violates the Constitution and the existing legislation.
It's not a slippery slope argument. There are any number of people who think that there is no part of a citizen's life government cannot control by whatever means it feels appropriate. The proof? The mandate itself: its proponents didn't feel bound by the law in trying to impose it.
At this point the Fifth Circuit has stopped the vaccine mandate in unusually strong language. I do not think this will be the last effort to expand government's reach.

[TSherbs]

This effort to stop the mandate in the military failed today:
The Hill: Judge rejects Sidney Powell's challenge to Pentagon's vaccine mandate | TheHill.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/581553-judge-rejects-sidney-powells-challenge-of-pentagons-vaccine-mandate

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

Asking questions is a recognized learning/teaching method, one which you used in your last paragraph. Nicely done.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Not all questions are equivalent, Kazoo.

But back onto the point of logic: of course freedom can be "considered" logically. No one denies this. I said that it wasn't a logical term nor a process of logic.

You seem to be making a slippery slope argument. I take your answer to my question above to be "yes," you are worried that granting the fed gov the power to mandate workplace safety guidelines and to permit termination for noncompliance means that the fed now has unlimited authority.

I do not subscribe to this slippery slope argument, especially not when we already see that states are challenging this authority in the court. No, the fed power is not unlimited. Your absolute claim that you seem to be making is not persuasive "logic" to me (in fact, it is a fallacy of logic in my eyes).


Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

And some questions are equivalent; your question and mine are functional equivalents.

If not a logical concept, what do you describe the concept of "freedom" as being.

No, you do not grasp my point, which is a critique of Chuck's position, which is.... Loss of a job, the means of support, is not a loss of liberty. Chuck's view of government is that it can act without regard to constitutional or legislative limits. His view is that there is no part of a person's life which the government can reach out and regulate even if in doing so it violates the Constitution and the existing legislation.
It's not a slippery slope argument. There are any number of people who think that there is no part of a citizen's life government cannot control by whatever means it feels appropriate. The proof? The mandate itself: its proponents didn't feel bound by the law in trying to impose it.
At this point the Fifth Circuit has stopped the vaccine mandate in unusually strong language. I do not think this will be the last effort to expand government's reach.


You're not providing "proof" of what you claim you are. This is not "proof" that "there are any number of people" who feel that there is "no part of a citizens life government cannot control by whatever means it feels appropriate."

I also don't think that you are summarizing Chuck's comments accurately. He is not saying that which you claim he is. You keep exaggerating what he states in order to have a strawman to argue against.

Just because I think that the feds have the power to regulate workplace safety does NOT mean that I believe that they have the power to do whatever they want whenever they want. I DONT believe that, not do I believe that that is even legally accurate in reality.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

And work isn't freedom [emoji3526]

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

It’s interesting to summarized….😂😂😂

[Chuck Naill]

Workplace safety has improved. What happened at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory would not be allowed today. That’s a good thing because industry wouldn’t self regulate. They locked the doors of escape to keep the women inside .

We know that people during the pandemic suffered and died due to meat packing companies hiring illegally and not following standards. That two wrongs .government has a purpose .

[kazoolaw]

You're not providing "proof" of what you claim you are. This is not "proof" that "there are any number of people" who feel that there is "no part of a citizens life government cannot control by whatever means it feels appropriate."

I also don't think that you are summarizing Chuck's comments accurately. He is not saying that which you claim he is. You keep exaggerating what he states in order to have a strawman to argue against.

Just because I think that the feds have the power to regulate workplace safety does NOT mean that I believe that they have the power to do whatever they want whenever they want. I DONT believe that, not do I believe that that is even legally accurate in reality.


Well, there are all those who propose/support the vaccine mandate. I suppose it took a number of people, including Robert Klain, Biden's chief of staff, who are in favor. [Note, be careful what you tweet.]

Chuck doesn't see how anyone's freedom is affected by the mandate: "No one has been able to explain how their freedoms are being restricted...but never they their freedoms are being restricted. " Post 101
The Fifth Circuit did:
"For one, the Mandate threatens to substantially burden the
liberty interests of reluctant individual recipients put to a choice between
their job(s) and their jab(s)."

I doubt I misunderstood the import of Chuck saying "Desperate times require desperate measures." Post 106.

I understand that no one wants to read a court opinion. I tried to hit some high points in what I cited. There's more:
"The Mandate is staggeringly overbroad." "At the same time, the Mandate is also underinclusive. " "It is thus critical to note that the Mandate makes no serious attempt to explain why OSHA and the President himself were against vaccine mandates before they were for one here." [ another flip flop]


We agree that the government does not legally have the power to do whatever they want whenever they want. But, as shown by the attempted mandate, it's not for lack of trying.

[TSherbs]

We agree that the government does not legally have the power to do whatever they want whenever they want. But, as shown by the attempted mandate, it's not for lack of trying.
[/SIZE][/FONT]


You're free to see it however you choose.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

I understand that no one wants to read a court opinion.
[/SIZE]

This is just crankiness.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

[QUOTE=TSherbs;343457]


We agree that the government does not legally have the power to do whatever they want whenever they want. But, as shown by the attempted mandate, it's not for lack of trying.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

It has the both the responsibilty and power to protect US citizens.

[dneal]

Responsibility?

64886

[TSherbs]

Responsibility?

SNIP

Yeah, that's what I said to the last cop who pulled me over: "Hey, it's the seatbelt's job to save the other guy, amiright?"

[dneal]

Seriously?

Seatbelt's job? Protect person wearing seatbelt. Vaccine's job? Protect person vaccinated.

Some time ago, I pointed out that:

You can contract COVID whether you are vaccinated or not.
You can transmit COVID whether you are vaccinated or not.

At best (but there's no real way to know since we can't have control groups when we're dealing with individuals), the vaccination reduces severe symptoms and potential hospitalization.

In the case of the OSHA mandate, if you're in a company with 99 employees or less; there's logically not enough workplace danger to mandate vaccinations. But once you trip that magic threshold of 100, it's dangerous enough to mandate vaccinations. Doesn't matter what you do, how many people you come in contact with during the course of your work day, etc...

And all of that ignores immunity status for those who recovered from COVID.

The insanity of the "rules" is why people call "shenanigans". It's not about prevention.

[TSherbs]

It's not about prevention.

Yes it is, regardless of what you or I post here.

And yes, I was serious about the seatbelt analogy and the excuse-making of a drunk driver (the irresponsible human behaving dangerously--and criminally--toward his fellow humans). The tweet you posted dismissed all human responsibility toward other members of the community by stating that an inanimate object (personified, in fact) bore the entire responsibility of protecting people. I consider that erroneous, and gave an example of how our legal system already holds humans responsible for dangerous or reckless behavior regardless of the safety measures that other people can take.

[kazoolaw]

I understand that no one wants to read a court opinion.
[/SIZE]

This is just crankiness.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Don't be cranky then, just read it. How many times have you ripped dneal for too long a video for you to watch?

[kazoolaw]

We agree that the government does not legally have the power to do whatever they want whenever they want. But, as shown by the attempted mandate, it's not for lack of trying.
[/SIZE][/FONT]


You're free to see it however you choose.

And you're free to ignore the truth at your own peril.

[TSherbs]

I don't mean any disrespect with this, kazoo, but I don't come to FPG for "truth" except for some specifics about pens. There is not much "truth" on these back pages, just a lot of rhetoric and bluster and play (among the more facetious).

And I'll read parts of that court document when I feel like it, thanks. I am not much worried about governmental over-reach over aq vaccine mandate for companies over 100 employees. Certainly not the way you are. If you feel "imperiled," then perhaps you should build a bunker. I'll stay out here in the sun and golden leaves of Maine, thank you.

I tried to get my booster vax at work today, but they ran out between all the students (ages 5+) and the other adults getting their boosters before me. Damn! The vax is popular in my area, and I am glad.

[kazoolaw]

TS-
You are free to be dismissive and cozy in your cocoon. Read what's there to be seen or not: the world moves on whether you know or care. Enjoy your retirement.

[TSherbs]

It has the both the responsibilty and power to protect US citizens.

Yup, right in the preamble to the US Const.

[TSherbs]

TS-
... the world moves on....


Yes, it does. And we are approaching the solstice, and the sun is going down quite early here these days. It's important to get some sun while one can. The other day, when I had 4 visitors staying in my house from South Carolina, we lost power for four hours in a storm. Very dark! We have no heat, no water, no nothing when we lose power because we are off town water/sewer and I have no generator. These southerners got a little cold and scared (I live next to a cemetery with graves from the 1700s).

Yes, this too shall pass.

[dneal]

Yes it is, regardless of what you or I post here.

You're wrong, regardless of what you or I post here.

Hmmm, is that really the way to formulate a compelling argument?


And yes, I was serious about the seatbelt analogy and the excuse-making of a drunk driver (the irresponsible human behaving dangerously--and criminally--toward his fellow humans). The tweet you posted dismissed all human responsibility toward other members of the community by stating that an inanimate object (personified, in fact) bore the entire responsibility of protecting people. I consider that erroneous, and gave an example of how our legal system already holds humans responsible for dangerous or reckless behavior regardless of the safety measures that other people can take.

The seatbelt analogy is simply nonsensical. It would be more accurate if you were referring to a vaccinated person who is infected and transmitting to others. Also, you didn't introduce the "drunk driver" aspect until this explanation. Perhaps intended earlier, but not apparent.

So if we are going to talk about dismissing things, why do you dismiss the majority of my post, and pull one phrase out of context?

Is it not true that a vaccination is primarily intended to protect the person who receives the vaccine?
Is it not true that a vaccinated person can contract COVID?
Is it not true that a vaccinated person can transmit COVID?

Is there some reason you dismiss those questions (previously posted as assertions)? Can you explain the logic in a 99-employee company not needing vaccines mandated, but a 100+ employee company being subject to the requirement? Is there some reason you dismissed that?

COVID is with us, and it is not going away. It is in multiple animal reservoirs now. Gorillas in the Atlanta zoo. Tigers in Omaha (I would include the Snow Leopards there, but they all died). Deer in Iowa. Dogs and cats in people's households. Do you know what that means?

Vaccination will help protect an individual's chance of contracting (perhaps). The mandate, masking and lockdown theater won't - because "science" - but the charade continues. Consider Austria's recently enacted lockdown (and there's a certain Schadenfreude from the irony of the "papers, please" requirement). Unvaccinated aren't allowed outside their homes, except for when they are (to go get groceries and other essentials). It is simply insane, yet many ignore what simple common sense should be telling them, and follow along to demonstrate their gute Staatsbürgerschaft; and perhaps to scold others for their lack thereof, because finger-wagging is so satisfying.

Perhaps we should be focusing on the most effective treatment in order to reduce death rates - instead of mocking and censoring (quite literally) the doctors and scientists whose professional opinions don't contribute to the multi-billion dollar investment into wundershots and other magic pills. Is anyone profiting from that? I wonder.

--edit--

Let's revisit and consider again the C.S. Lewis quote on moral busybodies.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

[Chuck Naill]

TS-
You are free to be dismissive and cozy in your cocoon. Read what's there to be seen or not: the world moves on whether you know or care. Enjoy your retirement.


He seems to post from a wide perspective and more balance than most. I wouldn't get to personal if I were you.

[TSherbs]

@dneal

I'm not interested in getting baited into disputation. So, sometimes, like this time, I don't even respond to a single line from your post (except your general question about my motivation). I try to be pretty clear about my motivations. This is just casual chat to me. Nothing is being proven or disproven, nothing won or lost, nothing solved. These threads tend to be mostly a negative energy reservoir that I have slipped into. I am more careful now around the edges.

You might see it differently. Have at it. I occasionally agree with you, occasionally disagree with you.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

Whoever your responding toward, I agree. Same here.

[dneal]

@dneal

I'm not interested in getting baited into disputation. So, sometimes, like this time, I don't even respond to a single line from your post (except your general question about my motivation). I try to be pretty clear about my motivations. This is just casual chat to me. Nothing is being proven or disproven, nothing won or lost, nothing solved. These threads tend to be mostly a negative energy reservoir that I have slipped into. I am more careful now around the edges.

You might see it differently. Have at it. I occasionally agree with you, occasionally disagree with you.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Perhaps you might not be so disputative if you don't want to be "baited" into disputation. Your "casual chat" seems more like drive-by commenting with a superficial level of thought. When that's pointed out, you post this sort of thing about what you don't want. In military parlance, you "pop-smoke".


p.s.: I don't believe I addressed any motivation on your part. I merely asked questions.

[TSherbs]

p.s.: I don't believe I addressed any motivation on your part. I merely asked questions.

Your "why" questions are motivation questions. I answered them.

See here:
...why do you dismiss the majority of my post, and pull one phrase out of context?

....

Is there some reason you dismiss those questions (previously posted as assertions)?

So, like I said, I am merely answering your motivation questions...the ones that you directly asked me.

[TSherbs]

He seems to post from a wide perspective and more balance than most. I wouldn't get to personal if I were you.

Thanks, Chuck. I appreciate the compliment. But don't worry about me and kazoo. I think that we understand well each other's opinions on these things. He is very worried about federal over-reach; I am not (yet). We all have our limits. He seems to have reached his, but we have not yet reached mine. Others may have different answers.

[Chuck Naill]

He seems to post from a wide perspective and more balance than most. I wouldn't get to personal if I were you.

Thanks, Chuck. I appreciate the compliment. But don't worry about me and kazoo. I think that we understand well each other's opinions on these things. He is very worried about federal over-reach; I am not (yet). We all have our limits. He seems to have reached his, but we have not yet reached mine. Others may have different answers.

I’m not worried. David Brooks has influenced me a bit regarding the benefit from having infrastructure and services in place to protect US citizens. I would never expect past employers to be in a position to help.

Yes, different perspectives are good.

My concern is with not understanding that Fauci et all didnt have all the information they needed and no presidential support

[dneal]

Your "why" questions are motivation questions. I answered them.

See here:
...why do you dismiss the majority of my post, and pull one phrase out of context?

....

Is there some reason you dismiss those questions (previously posted as assertions)?

So, like I said, I am merely answering your motivation questions...the ones that you directly asked me.

Actually, they were rhetorical.

[TSherbs]

@Chuck Naill

Some people are going to try to skewer Fauci. Not much that one can do about it. I chose not to engage in dispute on this. To me, it's not worth the argument (over masks, especially).

[Chuck Naill]

@Chuck Naill

Some people are going to try to skewer Fauci. Not much that one can do about it. I chose not to engage in dispute on this. To me, it's not worth the argument (over masks, especially).

For me, it is. My professional life has been in healthcare, but I respect yours was elsewhere.

[TSherbs]

@Chuck Naill

Some people are going to try to skewer Fauci. Not much that one can do about it. I chose not to engage in dispute on this. To me, it's not worth the argument (over masks, especially).

For me, it is. My professional life has been in healthcare, but I respect yours was elsewhere.I get it. And I believe in masking and wear one every day, all day, at work, willingly.

I mean that I am not interested in arguing over what I consider a settled matter (for me). Others can argue this, but not me.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

My state has laws, my employer has rules, my country has regulations. We either comply or don't comply. I comply with these rules, willingly. Other rules I disregard from time to time, with the full knowledge that I could be punished by my state or my employer. That's the way it goes.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

Arguing is a form of what it means to be a good citizen. Otherwise, only one voice is heard

[TSherbs]

OSHA backs off...for now...

New York Post: OSHA suspends Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate after court challenge.

https://nypost.com/2021/11/18/osha-suspends-bidens-covid-19-vaccine-mandate/

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[kazoolaw]

"Backs off" seems an odd way to say it was ordered to stop.
Of course, Joe told companies to continue with the mandate, which is where this topic started.

[Chuck Naill]

Gotta continue to pressure w/ 767K dead from COVID-19. Gotta do whatever it takes. No time to let up. At this point it's more marketing than evidence based decisions on the part of the unvaccinated. On other forums people are telling us about their "long COVID" experiences. It wouldn't be something I'd want to experience.

[dneal]

"Evidence based discussions" - like dismissing ivermectin out of hand as "horse dewormer", ridiculing or dismissing bona fide medical professionals who have identified effective treatment regimens, censoring and threatening medical professionals who don't follow the narrative, dismissing negative reactions to vaccines, etc...

Perhaps if we had a viable treatment (which we seem to have), lemmings wouldn't have their panties in such a bunch over masks and vaccines.

So "gotta do whatever it takes"? Apparently so, just as long as "whatever it takes" to save lives doesn't disrupt the narrative.

[kazoolaw]

Gotta do whatever it takes.

Dictatorship is an underlying theme/goal of Uncle Joe.
Funny, that sounds kinda familiar.

[Bold2013]

That’s what I’m starting to realize. It’s more about control than protecting lives. One would think the left would love to see non vaccinated conservatives be removed by natural selection. Heck maybe some would think it would help global warming.

[Chuck Naill]

Gotta do whatever it takes.

Dictatorship is an underlying theme/goal of Uncle Joe.
Funny, that sounds kinda familiar.


Oddly, that’s never characterized his career. He’s certainly got his faults, but so far not an autocrat.

[Chuck Naill]

Wouldn’t natural selection be those who better adapt? When you have a virus that’s killed 700k and you refuse to cooperate and get a vaccine, who’s not adapting? Lol!!

[dneal]

The Biden administration killed more Americans than Trump's - but he told us he had a plan. I mean, c'mon man!

Biden COVID death tracker (https://freebeacon.com/coronavirus/biden-covid-death-tracker/)

[Bold2013]

Wouldn’t natural selection be those who better adapt? When you have a virus that’s killed 700k and you refuse to cooperate and get a vaccine, who’s not adapting? Lol!!

That’s the point. Let people chose and possible suffer their own consequences while others can protect themselves with vaccines, boosters, masks, essential oils, zinc ect. Everyone should be able to get along.

[Chuck Naill]

What’s the point, Bold? People are already suffering their own consequences. What we are trying to do is protect others from suffering those who choose not only to not get a vaccine, but mask and keep a healthy distance.

Do we as citizens not have an obligation toward others, while maintaining our freedom to choose our own sickness and death?

[TSherbs]

Wouldn’t natural selection be those who better adapt? When you have a virus that’s killed 700k and you refuse to cooperate and get a vaccine, who’s not adapting? Lol!!

That’s the point. Let people chose and possible suffer their own consequences while others can protect themselves with vaccines, boosters, masks, essential oils, zinc ect. Everyone should be able to get along.Viruses often don't behave according to live-and-let-live rules. It's not as simple as this.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

COVID-19 loves evangelicals, Republicans, and anti-vaccine fools, I mean folks.

[kazoolaw]

Gotta do whatever it takes.

Dictatorship is an underlying theme/goal of Uncle Joe.
Funny, that sounds kinda familiar.


Oddly, that’s never characterized his career. He’s certainly got his faults, but so far not an autocrat.

Chuck,
Go back and read the cited examples in this topic.
By any means necessary? Ignore the rule of law?
Yup, pretty darn autocratic.

[TSherbs]

Ignore the rule of law?
Yup, pretty darn autocratic.


That's not what your example shows.

[Chuck Naill]

Gotta do whatever it takes.

Dictatorship is an underlying theme/goal of Uncle Joe.
Funny, that sounds kinda familiar.


Oddly, that’s never characterized his career. He’s certainly got his faults, but so far not an autocrat.

Chuck,
Go back and read the cited examples in this topic.
By any means necessary? Ignore the rule of law?
Yup, pretty darn autocratic.


Please stop with asking me to read somerthing or worse, watch some damn video you've found that you've chosen to post, Kazzy baby. Biden is not nor had ever been an autocrat. However, don't let me stop you from thinking so.

[kazoolaw]

chuck,
With all kindness, if you don't know what the topic is please go post where you know what's being discussed.

[kazoolaw]

Ignore the rule of law?
Yup, pretty darn autocratic.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

That's not what your example shows.

That's what all the examples, singly and aggregated, demonstrate.

Unless you're adopting the Truman doctrine. See, Share your favorite Quote, post 3.

[Chuck Naill]

chuck,
With all kindness, if you don't know what the topic is please go post where you know what's being discussed.


Thank you for your kindness, but I am not sure you are qualified to say what I know or don't know judging from your posts and threads. Just saying Kazzy Babby.

[TSherbs]

Ignore the rule of law?
Yup, pretty darn autocratic.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

That's not what your example shows.

That's what all the examples, singly and aggregated, demonstrate.

No, they don't. You're summarizing in hyperbole. From your very first post you are exaggerating. It's not "ignoring the rule of law" to use legal practice and delays to your advantage. It's not failure to uphold the Constitution. It's not failure to abide by the Presidential Oath of Office. It is not impeachable, or whatever. It is none of these exaggerations.

This is like saying that delaying a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee is a violation of the Constitution (some people claim this). It is not.

[Bold2013]

COVID-19 loves evangelicals, Republicans, and anti-vaccine fools, I mean folks.

I am none of these. Just someone who values freedom. We will see what the public thinks in the up coming election (2022/2024).

[kazoolaw]

Ignore the rule of law?
Yup, pretty darn autocratic.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

That's not what your example shows.

That's what all the examples, singly and aggregated, demonstrate.

No, they don't. You're summarizing in hyperbole. From your very first post you are exaggerating. It's not "ignoring the rule of law" to use legal practice and delays to your advantage. It's not failure to uphold the Constitution. It's not failure to abide by the Presidential Oath of Office. It is not impeachable, or whatever. It is none of these exaggerations.

This is like saying that delaying a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee is a violation of the Constitution (some people claim this). It is not.

TS, TS,
Clearly you still haven't read the Fifth Circuit opinion with it's withering opinion of Joe's constitutional acumen.
Bt the way, you anywhere near Fort Fairfield?

[Chuck Naill]

COVID-19 loves evangelicals, Republicans, and anti-vaccine fools, I mean folks.

I am none of these. Just someone who values freedom. We will see what the public thinks in the up coming election (2022/2024).

Yep

[TSherbs]

COVID-19 loves evangelicals, Republicans, and anti-vaccine fools, I mean folks.

I am none of these. Just someone who values freedom. We will see what the public thinks in the up coming election (2022/2024).We all value freedom. You are incorrect to suggest otherwise. So much of this thread is about staking out extreme positions, further emphasizing the political divide (erroneously, I would say).

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

Biden is not nor had ever been an autocrat.

Like you said, he has other flaws, but this isn't one of them.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[kazoolaw]

It's not for lack of trying.


"The Plaintiff States also argue that CMS’s rationale is flagrantly pretextual. The
Government Defendants say it is not pretextual, but it is obvious that the mandate was enacted as
a result of President Biden’s September 9, 2021, declaration of his intention to impose a national
CMS Mandate.33 Both the CMS and OSHA vaccine mandates were published on the same day,
November 5, 2021. However, the 46-page CMS Mandate does not even mention President
Biden’s declaration of a national vaccine mandate. The presence of pretext is enough to render a
rule arbitrary and capricious." [emphasis added]

***

"If the separation of powers meant anything to the Constitutional framers, it meant that the
three necessary ingredients to deprive a person of liberty or property – the power to make rules,
to enforce them, and to judge their violations – could never fall into the same hands. If the Executive branch is allowed to usurp the power of the Legislative branch to
make laws, two of the three powers conferred by the Constitution would be in the same hands.
If human nature and history teach anything, it is that civil liberties face grave risks when
governments proclaim indefinite states of emergency.
During a pandemic such as this one, it is even more important to safeguard the separation
of powers set forth in our Constitution to avoid erosion of our liberties." [citations deleted]

Louisiana vs Becerra, et al, USDC Western District of Louisiana

The first excerpt addresses the autocratic imposition of a mandate, while the second demonstrates that the attempt was made contrary to the Constitutional concept of separation of powers.

Interestingly, Dr. Jay Bhattachary is cited in the decision as well.

[Chuck Naill]

Kaz, what’s the message you hoped to convey?

[kazoolaw]

Just what I said:

"The first excerpt addresses the autocratic imposition of a mandate, while the second demonstrates that the attempt was made contrary to the Constitutional concept of separation of powers."

[Chuck Naill]

I’ll put forward the same question as I posed, to which he ignored, to @dneal, what you do?

[kazoolaw]

...what you do?

Is that a sentence?

[Chuck Naill]

...what you do?

Is that a sentence?


Had you posted the same, I would have understood the intend and responded. Don’t bother, I understand you’re a stuffed shirt😉😉

[kazoolaw]

...what you do?

Is that a sentence?


Had you posted the same, I would have understood the intend and responded. Don’t bother, I understand you’re a stuffed shirt😉😉

Didn't think you thought it was a sentence either.
You would have been responding to your understanding of my comment.
I'd rather know what you mean before responding.

[Chuck Naill]

...what you do?

Is that a sentence?


Had you posted the same, I would have understood the intend and responded. Don’t bother, I understand you’re a stuffed shirt😉😉

Didn't think you thought it was a sentence either.
You would have been responding to your understanding of my comment.
I'd rather know what you mean before responding.


Of course you would, being the troll

[kazoolaw]

Of course the other alternative is that you don't know, or won't say, what you mean.

[Chuck Naill]

Of course the other alternative is that you don't know, or won't say, what you mean.
It’s a simple question, what would you do?

[kazoolaw]

We both know you haven't finished the question: "What would you do (about ________?)

But I'll take your question as a free pass: I propose that Autocrat Joe, who claimed to graduate in the top half of his law school class when he was actually 76th out of 85, be questioned by someone with the skills of Trey Gowdy regarding the interplay of the presidential oath, the Constitutional separation of powers, and Biden's theory of ruling by edict.

[TSherbs]

It's not for lack of trying.


"The Plaintiff States also argue that CMS’s rationale is flagrantly pretextual. The
Government Defendants say it is not pretextual, but it is obvious that the mandate was enacted as
a result of President Biden’s September 9, 2021, declaration of his intention to impose a national
CMS Mandate.33 Both the CMS and OSHA vaccine mandates were published on the same day,
November 5, 2021. However, the 46-page CMS Mandate does not even mention President
Biden’s declaration of a national vaccine mandate. The presence of pretext is enough to render a
rule arbitrary and capricious." [emphasis added]
***


"If the separation of powers meant anything to the Constitutional framers, it meant that the
three necessary ingredients to deprive a person of liberty or property – the power to make rules,
to enforce them, and to judge their violations – could never fall into the same hands. If the Executive branch is allowed to usurp the power of the Legislative branch to
make laws, two of the three powers conferred by the Constitution would be in the same hands.
If human nature and history teach anything, it is that civil liberties face grave risks when
governments proclaim indefinite states of emergency.
During a pandemic such as this one, it is even more important to safeguard the separation
of powers set forth in our Constitution to avoid erosion of our liberties." [citations deleted]

Louisiana vs Becerra, et al, USDC Western District of Louisiana

The first excerpt addresses the autocratic imposition of a mandate, while the second demonstrates that the attempt was made contrary to the Constitutional concept of separation of powers.

Interestingly, Dr. Jay Bhattachary is cited in the decision as well.

I appreciate the selection that you have posted here, but it is a plaintiff's claim, not a ruling, right? I am supposing that your point here is that you agree with the plaintiff's charges. Or is this a "decision"? Can you post a link to the "decision," if it is in fact a ruling from a judge? I can't find any reference online to a status beyond the suit being filed....

[dneal]

A ruling.


Finding that the Government Defendants do not have the authority to implement the CMS Mandate, this Court GRANTS Plaintiff States’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 2] and IMMEDIATELY ENJOINS and RESTRAINS the Government Defendants from implementing the CMS Mandate.

PDF (https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2021/11/NationwideInjunction.pdf)

--edit--

For TSherbs - note page 28 and the court's comments on Police Power/Tenth Amendment, from an impasse in a different thread.


In the federal system, the federal government has limited powers. The States and the people retain the remainder.38 The States have broad authority to enact legislation for the public good (“police power”), but the federal government has no such authority, and can only exercise the powers granted to it, including the power to make all laws which may be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers. If the federal government would radically readjust the balance of state and national authority, those charged with the duty of legislating must be reasonably explicit about it. The Supreme Court will not be quick to assume Congress has meant to effect a significant change into the sensitive state and federal relations. Congress does not normally intrude upon the police power of States. Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844, 857-58 (2014).

[kazoolaw]

Thanks dneal,
This is the decision issuing a nationwide injunction against the mandate(except for the states already included in an earlier injunction).

[kazoolaw]

In its decision regarding the DHS' appeal of an order requiring adherence to the "Remain in Mexico" policy the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals became blunt in its assessment of the government's arguments, calling them "as unlawful as it is illogical," guilty of unclean hands (a legal term of art), "arbitrary and capricious," "independently unlawful," and concludes with:

"The Government’s position in this case has far-reaching implications
for the separation of powers and the rule of law. The Government says it has
unreviewable and unilateral discretion to create and to eliminate entire
components of the federal bureaucracy that affect countless people, tax
dollars, and sovereign States. The Government also says it has unreviewable
and unilateral discretion to ignore statutory limits imposed by Congress and
to remake entire titles of the United States Code to suit the preferences of
the executive branch. And the Government says it can do all of this by typing
up a new “memo” and posting it on the internet. If the Government were
correct, it would supplant the rule of law with the rule of say-so. We hold the
Government is wrong."

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-10806-CV1.pdf
at page 117.

Sense a theme here?

[TSherbs]

In its decision regarding the DHS' appeal of an order requiring adherence to the "Remain in Mexico" policy the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals became blunt in its assessment of the government's arguments, calling them "as unlawful as it is illogical," guilty of unclean hands (a legal term of art), "arbitrary and capricious," "independently unlawful," and concludes with:

"The Government’s position in this case has far-reaching implications
for the separation of powers and the rule of law. The Government says it has
unreviewable and unilateral discretion to create and to eliminate entire
components of the federal bureaucracy that affect countless people, tax
dollars, and sovereign States. The Government also says it has unreviewable
and unilateral discretion to ignore statutory limits imposed by Congress and
to remake entire titles of the United States Code to suit the preferences of
the executive branch. And the Government says it can do all of this by typing
up a new “memo” and posting it on the internet. If the Government were
correct, it would supplant the rule of law with the rule of say-so. We hold the
Government is wrong."

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-10806-CV1.pdf
at page 117.

Sense a theme here?


That is, indeed, a sharp criticism of the government's actions and "defense".

[kazoolaw]

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has lifted the injunction against the OSHA vaccine mandate.

[TSherbs]

I saw that. I guess the SC is next.

[kazoolaw]

Yes, the applications have been filed.

[kazoolaw]

Texas Federal District Court enjoins mask mandate for Headstart Program:

"Because the Court concludes that there is a substantial likelihood that the mandates do not fit within the Head Start Act’s authorizing text, that HHS failed to follow the APA in promulgating the mandates, and that the mandates are arbitrary and capricious, the Court preliminarily enjoins their enforcement in Texas."

Case 5:21-cv-00300-H Document 42 Filed 12/31/21 Page 1 of 56 PageID 24553Case 5:21-cv-00300-H Document 42 Filed 12/31/21 Page 1 of 56 PageID 24553State of Texas et al v. Becerra, et alDoc. 42Dockets.Justia.com

Though requested, the Court limited the injunction to Texas, and did not extend it to the entire US.

[Chuck Naill]

Schools here vaccinate the students against influenza and wear masks. I hope they offer COVID-19 vaccines as well because it would be a convenience for all concerned. I think childhood schedule vaccines are required to attend classes.


Grandson ran a fever over the weekend and tested negative for COVID-19.

[kazoolaw]

As someone once said, "If you want to be a part of the discussion, can you make at least one attempt toward the present discussion?"

[TSherbs]

Texas Federal District Court enjoins mask mandate for Headstart Program:

"Because the Court concludes that there is a substantial likelihood that the mandates do not fit within the Head Start Act’s authorizing text, that HHS failed to follow the APA in promulgating the mandates, and that the mandates are arbitrary and capricious, the Court preliminarily enjoins their enforcement in Texas."

Case 5:21-cv-00300-H Document 42 Filed 12/31/21 Page 1 of 56 PageID 24553Case 5:21-cv-00300-H Document 42 Filed 12/31/21 Page 1 of 56 PageID 24553State of Texas et al v. Becerra, et alDoc. 42Dockets.Justia.com

Though requested, the Court limited the injunction to Texas, and did not extend it to the entire US.



Is the ruling limited only to Head Start programs?

[Chuck Naill]

As someone once said, "If you want to be a part of the discussion, can you make at least one attempt toward the present discussion?"


I figured it was relavent, but okay.

[dneal]

Chuck, it's still relevant. It just hasn't occurred to you the other ways it applies.

[Chuck Naill]

I've thought about this ruling. If I could do anything to prevent children from getting sick, I would. If the law says I can't, then change the law. Choosing to do knowing for any reason is not reasonable.

[dneal]

Maybe a place to start is with not mandating a vaccination that has high rates of myocarditis and pericarditis, for children that have almost no risk from what you’re vaccinating them against. Given that they have almost no risk from Covid, perhaps one might also think about their education and mental well being and the consequences of the nonsense school and mask policies.

[Chuck Naill]

The rates are not high.

[kazoolaw]

I've thought about this ruling. If I could do anything to prevent children from getting sick, I would. If the law says I can't, then change the law. Choosing to do knowing for any reason is not reasonable.

This is actually a reflection of the Biden theory of government: I can change/ignore/interpret the law to meet my goals, constitutional limits on power be damned. Like telling SEALS that there are religious exemptions for vaccinations and then uniformly denying each application for an exemption:
The judge, Reed O’Connor, said in his order that the Navy’s blanket denial of all religious waiver requests amounted to a violation of their rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“The Navy servicemembers in this case seek to vindicate the very freedoms they have sacrificed so much to protect,” O’Connor wrote in the ruling. “The COVID-19 pandemic provides the government no license to abrogate those freedoms. There is no COVID-19 exception to allthe First Amendment. There is no military exclusion from our Constitution.”

O’Connor goes on to write that the claims of the 35 sailors are “strong,” noting that “secular” waivers, in the guise of medical waivers, were approved while religious ones were not.

“As a brief preview, the vaccine mandate fails strict scrutiny,” the judge wrote. “The mandate treats comparable secular activity (e.g., medical exemptions) more favorably than religious activity.”
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2022-01-03/navy-religious-vaccine-waivers

This is at the District Court level and, of course, subject to appeal. But note the Judge's finding that all religious waivers were denied. This was the Navy doing something.

[Chuck Naill]

Laws that are not relevant should be changed. Thinking laws are Biblical are kind of nonsensical.

[kazoolaw]

Laws that are not relevant should be changed. Thinking laws are Biblical are kind of nonsensical.

Of course you understand that religious exemptions are provided for under secular laws. Why would you say such a thing?

[Chuck Naill]

Laws can be altered or amended.

[kazoolaw]

Laws can be altered or amended. Or ignored. or misapplied, or misunderstood.

[Chuck Naill]

Laws can be altered or amended. Or ignored. or misapplied, or misunderstood.

Okay and whatever.

[kazoolaw]

Today the Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and held that the vaccine mandate must be stayed while the issue works its way through the courts. The opinion stated, in part,

It is telling that OSHA, in its half century of existence,
has never before adopted a broad public health regulation
of this kind—addressing a threat that is untethered, in any
causal sense, from the workplace. This “lack of historical
precedent,” coupled with the breadth of authority that the
Secretary now claims, is a “telling indication” that the
mandate extends beyond the agency’s legitimate reach.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf

[TSherbs]

I wonder if the 5-4 ruling on institutions receiving federal funds (permitting the mandate in these situations) will apply to schools with over 100 employees that receive federal funding.

[Chuck Naill]

While quoting the Hypocratic Oath for health care workers. My first thoughts were, if you think harm is possible by not receiving the vaccine, wouldb't that also apply to all?

[dneal]

I wonder if the 5-4 ruling on institutions receiving federal funds (permitting the mandate in these situations) will apply to schools with over 100 employees that receive federal funding.

The 5-4 ruling was in regard to Health and Human Services' mandate for health-care workers in facilities receiving Medicare/Medicaid dollars, not all institutions receiving federal funds.


The Secretary of Health and Human Services administers the Medicare and Medicaid programs, which provide health insurance for millions of elderly, disabled, and low income Americans. In November 2021, the Secretary announced that, in order to receive Medicare and Medicaid funding, participating facilities must ensure that their staff—unless exempt for medical or religious reasons—are vaccinated against COVID–19. 86 Fed. Reg. 61555 (2021). Two District Courts enjoined enforcement of the rule, and the Government now asks us to stay those injunctions. Agreeing that it is entitled to such relief, we grant the applications.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a240_d18e.pdf

[kazoolaw]

From the concurring opinion of Justice Gorsuch:

"The federal government’s powers, however, are not general but limited and divided. See McCulloch v. Maryland,
4 Wheat. 316, 405 (1819). Not only must the federal government properly invoke a constitutionally enumerated
source of authority to regulate in this area or any other. It
must also act consistently with the Constitution’s separation of powers. "
(Citations omitted, emphasis added)

[Chuck Naill]

I’m sure a First Ammendment argument could have been used. What is liberty, if dead?

An, to impose a different standard on healthcare. Really?

[kazoolaw]

Nominee Judge Jackson :
You can expect questioning regarding her being reversed on appeal for deciding a case over which she had no jurisdiction, and another for judicial overreach for deciding a case in light of a federal law stating the question was left to the federal agency alone.
[Please refer to the https://jonathanturley.org/2022/02/2...brown-jackson/ [I haven't had the time to read the decisions listed in this article.]
Seems at a glance to be another in the "judicial legislating" Democrat camp.

[Chuck Naill]

"at a glane" being the issue.

[kazoolaw]

"at a glane" being the issue.


The word is "glance," which is not the issue.
Having now read the two opinions: a judicial legislator with little/no sense on the limits of jurisdiction.

[Chuck Naill]

"at a glane" being the issue.


The word is "glance," which is not the issue.
Having now read the two opinions: a judicial legislator with little/no sense on the limits of jurisdiction.

Yes, and the word is relevant.

[kazoolaw]

"at a glane" being the issue.


The word is "glance," which is not the issue.
Having now read the two opinions: a judicial legislator with little/no sense on the limits of jurisdiction.

Yes, and the word is relevant.

Not now after a long gaze.

[Chuck Naill]

"at a glane" being the issue.


The word is "glance," which is not the issue.
Having now read the two opinions: a judicial legislator with little/no sense on the limits of jurisdiction.

Yes, and the word is relevant.

Not now after a long gaze.


Depends on where you're standing.

[kazoolaw]

Depends on where you're standing.

This is Chuck.
When the topic is too tough for him to understand Chuck goes inanely off-topic.
Chuck thinks his distraction prevents you from noticing his inability to engage in genuine discussion.
Don't be Chuck.

[Chuck Naill]

Don't worry about me. Just try your best to stay engaged as best you can, if you can. Happy March 1st, Kaz.