Some of you commies were saying the states have power to destroy our constitutional rights... Many of us told you that will depend on whether the states can show their remedies can withstand strict scrutiny... Turns out some us knew far more about the Constitution and how our rights are protected by the Constitution ... than than all your "constitutional scholars" quoted by your media.... combined.... .. The 9th circuit just... showed you to be commies. === The 9th circuit found : California violated Constitutional rights shutting down Private Schools...(while it was OK for them to close down Public schools) https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/07/23/20-56291.pdf We reach a different conclusion, however, as to the State’s interference in the in-person provision of private education to the children of five of the Plaintiffs in this case. California’s forced closure of their private schools implicates a right that has long been considered fundamental under the applicable caselaw—the right of parents to control their children’s education and to choose their children’s educational forum. Because California’s ban on in-person schooling abridges a fundamental liberty of these five Plaintiffs that is protected by the Due Process Clause, that prohibition can be upheld only if it withstands strict scrutiny. .... To satisfy strict scrutiny, California must show that its infringement of the private-school Plaintiffs’ rights is “narrowly tailored” to advance a “compelling” state interest. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 533 (1993). “Stemming the spread of COVID-19 is unquestionably a compelling interest.” Diocese of Brooklyn, 141 S. Ct. at 67. The only question, therefore, is whether the State has shown that its broad prohibition of in-person education satisfies the narrow-tailoring requirement as a matter of law. It has not. In Diocese of Brooklyn, the Supreme Court held that attendance caps of 10 and 25 people at indoor religious services in areas that were classified as having a high prevalence of Covid were not narrowly tailored. 141 S. Ct. at 67. As the Court explained, such caps were “more restrictive than any COVID–related regulations” that the Court had upheld; they were “much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard-hit by the pandemic”; and they were “far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus” at the relevant facilities. Id. The same points are applicable here. By prohibiting inperson instruction at the relevant Plaintiffs’ schools, California effectively imposed an attendance cap of zero, which is much more restrictive than the numerical caps struck down by the Supreme Court for religious services in Diocese of Brooklyn. 25 That alone confirms that California’s prohibition on in-person instruction is not sufficiently tailored. Moreover, Plaintiffs presented undisputed evidence that California’s broad and lengthy closure of schools was more severe than what many other jurisdictions have done, thereby further negating any suggestion that California adopted the least restrictive means of accomplishing its compelling interest. And Plaintiffs presented evidence that California had failed to narrowly tailor its response inasmuch as it stubbornly adhered to an overbroad school-closure order even as evidence mounted that Covid’s effects exhibit a significant age gradient, falling much more harshly on the elderly and having little impact, statistically speaking, on children...
For those of you who doubt... we were was on this... in April of 2020... we were on this... https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...e-up-their-rights.342446/page-22#post-5072164 "and all shutdowns of constitutional rights have limits." if we allowed govt to do what that wanted without examination because they claim emergency... we would effectively have no constitutional rights vs the government. I think there is a very good chance the court would review the collision of Govt duty to protect people vs our Constitutional rights (impacted by this shutdown) with a strict scrutiny framework... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny As we get more data and information and we move towards the end of the crisis the court would naturally move closer to curtailing the shutdown of liberty.
Pretty much all the private schools in my area were open as of September even though the public schools were 100% virtual. Private schools were able to enforce mask mandates, socially distance and spread their students out due to more space and less student restrictions. It would have been acceptable for CA to require specific safety protocols in place for any private school to operate as every other state basically did, rather than shut them down 100%. CA went way above and beyond and it reminds me of Michigan shutting down landscaping companies when every other state pretty much had them operating with safety guidleines since they were outside. The court case is limited to the facts of school closings of private entities though since their requirements were more restrictive than in most states. That was the cruzx of the court decision here by saying CAs closing was broader and more severe than in other states and could not survive the increased scrutiny. As for the commies comment, read the decision closer, it did not say closing down things was unconstitutional... it said CA's approach to private schools was in excess of what most states were doing and did not hold up to scrutiny.
The commie comment was to the commies who said the states and Govt had the power to trample on constitution rights because of a health emergency.... and particularly to the selfish commies from this country and others who were cheering the lockdowns on ... particularly with respect to young healthy people. As I said in April... infringements of constitutional rights are likely to be examined under strict scrutiny framework.. Which is why I let the court speak for itself as to the limits or the crux of their decision... as they were looking to very similar decision made by the US Supreme Court with respect to Newsom's (CA and other states) unconstitutional lockdown of Churches... Below is a quote... https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/07/23/20-56291.pdf .... To satisfy strict scrutiny, California must show that its infringement of the private-school Plaintiffs’ rights is “narrowly tailored” to advance a “compelling” state interest. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 533 (1993). “Stemming the spread of COVID-19 is unquestionably a compelling interest.” Diocese of Brooklyn, 141 S. Ct. at 67. The only question, therefore, is whether the State has shown that its broad prohibition of in-person education satisfies the narrow-tailoring requirement as a matter of law. It has not. In Diocese of Brooklyn, the Supreme Court held that attendance caps of 10 and 25 people at indoor religious services in areas that were classified as having a high prevalence of Covid were not narrowly tailored. 141 S. Ct. at 67. As the Court explained, such caps were “more restrictive than any COVID–related regulations” that the Court had upheld; they were “much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard-hit by the pandemic”; and they were “far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus” at the relevant facilities. Id. The same points are applicable here. By prohibiting inperson instruction at the relevant Plaintiffs’ schools, California effectively imposed an attendance cap of zero, which is much more restrictive than the numerical caps struck down by the Supreme Court for religious services in Diocese of Brooklyn. 25 That alone confirms that California’s prohibition on in-person instruction is not sufficiently tailored. Moreover, Plaintiffs presented undisputed evidence that California’s broad and lengthy closure of schools was more severe than what many other jurisdictions have done, thereby further negating any suggestion that California adopted the least restrictive means of accomplishing its compelling interest. And Plaintiffs presented evidence that California had failed to narrowly tailor its response inasmuch as it stubbornly adhered to an overbroad school-closure order even as evidence mounted that Covid’s effects exhibit a significant age gradient, falling much more harshly on the elderly and having little impact, statistically speaking, on children...
To clarify, the court did not say the state was wrong to infringe on certain constitutional rights... just the extent was excessive. Most people read these cases erroneously and claim... see the state is not allowed to infringe constitutional rights! Not what the court said with respect to churches. And with respect to private schools, Court said CA's restrictions were excessive.... NOT unconstitutional on their face. This is a very important distinction most people miss when they make blanket statements so that is why i was clarifying. The commie comment implies the belief the state is allowed ZERO infringement on Constitutional rights and this was already decided as false. "To satisfy strict scrutiny, California must show that its infringement of the private-school Plaintiffs’ rights is “narrowly tailored” to advance a “compelling” state interest." CA infringement was found to be excessive, not prima facie unconstitutional, especially when compared to how other states were handling the same situation.
Which I have never done ...what the fuck is wrong with you? you troll me.. you try and out me with lies you threaten my daughter with sick comments... do you know how old she is? you have no idea what you are talking about.. if you did you would back off because you would instantly be on watch lists...
You are not only preaching to the choir... you are preaching to the conductor what the instructor said in April of 2020... https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...e-up-their-rights.342446/page-22#post-5072164 "and all shutdowns of constitutional rights have limits." if we allowed govt to do what that wanted without examination because they claim emergency... we would effectively have no constitutional rights vs the government. I think there is a very good chance the court would review the collision of Govt duty to protect people vs our Constitutional rights (impacted by this shutdown) with a strict scrutiny framework...
Threaten your daughter? When and where? Show proof. You’re a lawyer. You should be on a watch list for being certifiable. You admitted in one of your posts you were afraid to take your daughter and her friends boating. Now why would a normal dad be afraid of that? I troll you because you or someone associated with you is SmallFil. Lose the Smalfil Nick.