Pakman On Impending Doom For Dems In NovemberPosted By Rod Kaufman |
That's not what I'm seeing in an analysis from The Hill:Originally Posted by Darian Rachal
Perhaps it's simply an indication of how much Warnock is disliked, that someone as 'unqualified' as Walker seems poised to defeat him.
Pakman On Impending Doom For Dems In NovemberPosted By Rod Kaufman |
Darian, that's funny, what I hear the president say makes a lot more sense than anything coming out of the mouth of the ex-failed prez during any of multitude of rants at his fundraising (grifting) events where he constantly complains the past election "was stolen." Truly delusional, don't ya think?Originally Posted by Darian Rachal
Rod, I guess having a senile buffoon presently occupying the White House has its repercussions.
Pakman On Impending Doom For Dems In NovemberPosted By Rod Kaufman |
I'll have to deduct whatever was left in my belief that you had some rational understanding that the sentiment expressed in the above statement is complete and utter nonsense being peddled by propagandists and conspiracy theorists. I'm pleased to know that a major source of conspiracy theories and the like, Alex Jones and infowars, filed for bankruptcy today. That also includes infowars Health and Prison Planet TV...Originally Posted by Darian Rachal
Rod, I'll have to give you some credit if you are capable of understanding the incoherent babbling of the senile former Vice President.As I stated in a post several weeks ago, I can envision the possibility of his mental state deteriorating so rapidly that he'd be incapable of appearing in public by the end of the year. I seriously doubt he's capable of taking care of himself at present.
Pakman On Impending Doom For Dems In NovemberPosted By Rod Kaufman |
The Totalitarian Bastards lost for once.Posted By Rod Kaufman |
The Federal Judge Who Ended The Travel Mask MandatePosted By Rod Kaufman |
"The part of Judge Mizelle’s ruling that drew the most intense fire was her interpretation of a 1944 federal law known as the Public Health Service Act (PHSA). Her ruling, which largely turned on how she defined the word “sanitation” in the statute, was lampooned by critics as an almost farcical rendering of the textualist method of legal interpretation, due to the judge’s seeming detachment from the public health imperatives underlying Congress’ apparent aim."Originally Posted by Chris PaganFrom what I read it simply eliminates the mandate however it says nothing about infringing in the right for those who wish to chose to continue to want to wear a mask as a precaution.
Chris
The Federal Judge Who Ended The Travel Mask MandatePosted By Rod Kaufman |
The Federal Judge Who Ended The Travel Mask MandatePosted By Rod Kaufman |
The Federal Judge Who Ended The Travel Mask MandatePosted By Rod Kaufman |
I understand the case has been directed to an ultra conservative three man appellate court in Louisiana. I'm sure they'll have an open mind just like the one in Clarence Thomas' head...Originally Posted by James Lacey
I suspect her ruling will be overturned. She is one of only 22 out of 1,400 nominees that the ABA has rated as not qualified since 1989. She is very young and very inexperienced and very underqualified. All appearances are she was mostly a political appointee. We will see.
The Federal Judge Who Ended The Travel Mask MandatePosted By Rod Kaufman |
"...you must use the context in which a given word appears to determine its aptest, most likely sense."Originally Posted by James Lacey
I read and skimmed most of the ruling. It's not that long, and you can find it here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21636220/047124235804.pdf
She talks about sanitation; a lot. But here is the funny thing. The judge spends a lot of time defining the word sanitation, but ultimately, from what I can tell, all of that argumentation has nothing to do with why she struck down the mandate. All of the writing about sanitation could be removed, and it would not change the document's meaning one bit.
She struck down the mandate quite simply because she says the CDC did not allow a thirty-day notice and comment period before enacting the mandate. But she goes on to say that the comment period can be bypassed if it's impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. And says that the CDC did not provide justification for bypassing the comment period. In short, she is saying the pandemic was not enough of an emergency to dispense with the comment period. That is her whole argument, from what I can tell.
Here is an interesting aside. When discussing sanitation and its meaning for pages and pages, she says, and I quote:
To aid in this statutory interpretation inquiry, dictionaries provide only a helpful starting point. They give the broad sweep of what a word might mean, but not what it must mean in each context.
She goes on to quote none other than Scalia, and say:
Because common words typically have more than one meaning, you must use the context in which a given word appears to determine its aptest, most likely sense.
Isn't that exactly what KBJ was trying to say about defining the common word woman during her confirmation process? Shouldn't someone in the GOP be attacking this woman for being wishy-washy about defining common words?
