Search results

Aside from what others have mentioned about injuries, there's also the way Paul structured his teams on offense. He was looking for very specific types to play different positions and the skill sets he valued were not compatible (usually) with what the pros were after. I've mentioned him before...

Losing Ratliffe really hurt. He would have started for three years, imho. Second place is losing both Jordan and Mills. I was expecting our 2017 team to have Jordan at QB and Mills at BB. That would have been a team to fear. It would have been the reincarnation of the Will Wirth teams at Navy...

What I see is that you: • Haven't seen what the basis of the suit was; • Haven't been able to follow Harlan's reasoning about that; • Haven't understood what the basis of the decision was about. Go back and read Harlan. Please.

I took it as read that you had read Jacobson. All the answers to your questions are right there in Justice Harlan's opinion. Here'e the link: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/ Read him again.

I was wrong. It's only 90 million people. See: https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/issue-brief/how-many-adults-are-at-risk-of-serious-illness-if-infected-with-coronavirus/ That means roughly 41 million people in the active population. Still enough to be, shall we say, concerned about.

Last figures I saw on the "inactive population" and those who are in the medically fragile group came out to around 145M people. The answer to this isn't to take risks with these people. It's to write laws that provide the funds the less threatened need. But that's too easy and makes too much...

See the recent demonstration in Michigan. Obviously, there are people advocating "behavior like that".

!. The clause you mention applies to the federal government, not to the states. For what seems to be the millionth time, states have an inherent police power that the federal government doesn't have, except on federal reservations. There is no constitutional right to not get vaccinated in the...

That's not inconsistent at all. The federal constitution has rights and most (not all) of them have been "incorporated" by the due process clause of the 14th amendment to apply to the states. But the federal constitution does not include a "do what you want in an emergency, even if it endangers...

If the authorities ordering people to do things in emergencies is a police state, we've had one since the birth of the Republic. And, I might add, we had a flu vaccine then. Jonas Salk (yes, that Jonas Salk) headed a team to put the first one together in the 1930s. Now, could be not so many...

They often do. The people who wrote the Constitution wanted it that way. They knew that what they put together would have to adapt to new circumstances. Wish they had foreseen more of them, however.

Get used to it. We've been doing it since the Founding.

Well, yes, there is. As I've pointed out here before, it is a lot easier to manage people in a regular store then people at a religious service. Also, you can restrict the number of people in a store a lot easier then in a church. If you have a general "no gathering of more then 10 people" order...

Here's something interesting on opinion in Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida about re-opening: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/29/these-three-governors-are-reopening-their-states-faster-than-their-voters-want/ So we'll see how that plays out in terms of people responding to the...

Actually, it was. In 1905. See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/197/11 and for the present applications: https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/10/politics/pandemic-coronavirus-jacobson-supreme-court-abortion-rights/index.html Interesting that the case was used to restrict abortion...

Well, no, he doesn't, as long as there are general restrictions on all meetings religious or secular that are deemed necessary due to a public emergency. State governments can't single out meetings for religious purposes to get special treatment, but a general ban is perfectly permissible...

I don't know where you got this idea. The courts give states a lot of leeway to step around or suspend rights when an emergency has been declared or public order is threatened. And sometimes it doesn't take even that. For example, take a look at...

They'll lose.

That's true. It is also irrelevant in this situation. State police powers don't violate the US Constitution except under very specific circumstances. And when they are applied the courts usually side with the states when a public emergency has been declared for good reason. Sort like now.

They don't have the votes. And this isn't a matter of "implied powers". Police powers are pretty general and can be invoked by governors in state emergencies. The courts - usually - go along with their exercise.