News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tes... by sandworm101 on Saturday May 16, 2020 @09:15PM (#23208591)
>> The illegal act is arbitrarily shutting down the ability to earn a livelihood.

That would be illegal, but isn't what is happening. An outright ban on all work would certainly be unconstitutional (life liberty, pursuit of happiness etc). But temporarily shutting down a business because of a virus, safety issues, lack of insurance, pollution worries, failure to pay taxes, inadequate lighting in the parking lots, to preserve a crime scene, or because the road out front needs work ... local governments close businesses all the time. So long as the reason is reasonable and the shutdown is temporary the courts will find it acceptable.

If you want to win in court, disobeying a law is generally not the best path. Musk isn't Rosa Parks. Musk doesn't have to be arrested before he can challenge the law in court. By acting like this he isn't helping his case(s). I'm sure his lawyers are pulling their hair out.

Politically, Musk is shooting himself in the foot. What if the local health department says that automotive factory workers must stay 10feet away from each other, all get respirators, get tested twice a day, and must take a month of covid safety training? Those will all be "reasonable" in the eyes of any court. That they would also kill any chance of Tesla turning a profit is political consequence of disobeying previous health orders.

Re:California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tes... by dragonwriter on Saturday May 16, 2020 @11:14PM (#23209262)
> An outright ban on all work would certainly be unconstitutional (life liberty, pursuit of happiness etc).

One of those isn't in the Constitution, the other two are only protected against deprivation without due process.

Re:California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tes... by koolba on Saturday May 16, 2020 @10:38PM (#23209038)
> If you want to win in court, disobeying a law is generally not the best path. Musk isn't Rosa Parks. Musk doesn't have to be arrested before he can challenge the law in court. By acting like this he isn't helping his case(s).

Justice delayed is justice denied. When the courts themselves are grinding to a halt with the lockdown who knows when injunctive relief would arrive?

> I'm sure his lawyers are pulling their hair out.

Ha! With the rest of his shenanigans I’d be impressed if they have any left. The “pedo guy” episode must have caused a few Rogaine scrips.

> Politically, Musk is shooting himself in the foot. What if the local health department says that automotive factory workers must stay 10feet away from each other, all get respirators, get tested twice a day, and must take a month of covid safety training? Those will all be "reasonable" in the eyes of any court. That they would also kill any chance of Tesla turning a profit is political consequence of disobeying previous health orders.

If they target specifically Tesla with rules like that it’d be thrown out for being vindictive and targeted.

If they try to impose those type of rules on the entire State they’ll have a class action of businesses challenging them.

If rules are going to be imposed they need to be debated on facts, written by a legislative body, and signed into law. Not shot from the hip on a daily basis on the current executive’s whims.

Re:California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tes... by metacritic12 on Saturday May 16, 2020 @09:20PM (#23208622)
It's uncertain whether the CA laws / orders are themselves illegal or unconstitutional. In an emergency setting like this, you have both new "rules" that are illegal, and some legal rules that are just being violated without prosecution.