And why the hell would Congress be able to overrule states on something like this? What torturous reading of the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to forbid lockdowns?
"U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, in a similar case out of California related to pandemic restrictions on religious gatherings, wrote in May that elected officials should be allowed latitude when acting in areas “fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties” and should not be subject to second-guessing by an “unelected federal judiciary.”
Further, if there are medical and scientific uncertainties... Erring on the side of constitutional rights seems a LOT less potentially exploitable to me. If you think that something is so critical that you need to permanently remove rights to combat it... You should be able to back that up with incontrovertible evidence.
If this is true it may change my congress and senate votes from blue to red.
I won't vote in a presidential candidate that supports lockdowns "if the science supports it" and will make me wear a mask.
Can his party truly make my state do these things?
If so that's terrifying to me and there's no way I'm giving blue, the people I voted for all my life until this year, this type of power.
Enjoy your Sunday
Lockdown protects the public health and has long standing precedent. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/197/11
Just come out and say you're a selfish person who doesn't care if they harm people instead of hiding behind all of the pretense that it's restricting you too much.
Effective determination and points of control can be thorny.
Edit to respond to downvotes: Nor was it constitutional to institute sweeping metadata collection as a new normal in response to an emergency situation. Nor is it constitutional to make encryption illegal as the new normal because of an emergency. Etc.
HIV positive people on medication, cannot spread HIV. It's factually safer to have sex with an HIV positive person on meds, than a person who doesn't get tested and doesn't know their status.
This law exists so that HIV positive people who cannot spread the virus are not legally obligated to tell others they have the virus.
Please learn more about what it means to be HIV positive, and the discrimination that comes with it before making these horrible disparaging comments.
Undetectable = Uninfectable (u=u) maybe a good thing for you to Google.
Personally, I'm still not sure how that doesn't count as rape by deception, but whatever.
In any case, I brought it up to compare to pandemic mask mandates. A "gay sex condom mandate" 30 or 40 years ago would have been incredibly effective at containing HIV (assuming it was actually followed), and HIV was at the time FAR more deadly than COVID-19. The fact that people consider one acceptable and one unthinkable is IMO interesting.
Absurdly false. Not everyone responds the same to medication, not everyone has the same health conditions, and not everyone begins treatment at the same time. Further to that, completely besides the point:
If you have a fatal disease that can only be kept at bay with powerful ARV's (that are often expensive and loaded with serious side effects), then you have the responsibility to inform those you potentially expose to it. Paramedics, doctors, dentists, sexual partners. Basic decency. You are KNOWINGLY making potentially life and death decisions for others by depriving them of information.
This means that in most cases, a plaintiff would have to prove actual negligence by a preponderance of the evidence.”
The law does not require that someone be on HIV medication, you have to prove ill intent or negligence.
It’s objectively easier to stop HIV with coordinated effort than COVID, so therefore it is impossible to stop SARS-CoV-2 with the current population education/skill level.
- U.S. District Judge William Stickman declaring PA's lockdown orders unconstitutional