• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

PA judge rules that state's coronavirus restrictions are unconstitutional

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Judge rules Pennsylvania's COVID-19 restrictions unconstitutional

Sept. 15 (UPI) -- A federal judge has ruled that Pennsylvania Gov. Tim Wolf's shutdown orders to slow the spread of the coronavirus were unconstitutional.

Judge William Stickman IV of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ruled Monday that the governor's order to limit the number of people at gatherings violated the First Amendment right to assembly and his order closing "non-life sustaining" businesses and requiring residents to stay home violated due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

"The court believes that Defendants undertook their actions in a well-intentioned effort to protect Pennsylvanians from the virus," Stickman, a President Donald Trump appointee, wrote in his 66-page opinion. "However, good intentions toward a laudable end are not alone enough to uphold governmental action against a constitutional challenge."

Trump cheered the ruling on Twitter as "Great News."

The governor is seeking a stay on the order while they file an appeal.

And now, for a bit of parody:

 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I made a mistake in the thread title. I wrote a "PA judge" when it was actually a federal judge.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
There's always pressure for government to exceed constitutional
limits on powers in order to serve the greater good. But one
person's greater good is another's oppression. There's risk allowing
government to act against the Constitution. It just might enable
some action you find wrong.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Maybe it's a pro-death judge?

Numerous other federal rulings have gone the other way on this. The right of peaceful assembly cannot be stopped but it can be regulated to a certain extent as other factors can be involved, and these regulations can be done at both the state and/or local levels. Obviously, said regulations can be challenged at the state and/or local levels, but in this case it begs the question as to whether the judge himself may have gone too far on this? I don't know, but I am quite suspicious.

Either way, it could be challenged and taken to a federal appeals court.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
No, two reasons.
He appointments judges who fail to realize the government is factually charged with promoting the general welfare of the public.
Even after being caught lyimg and not denying it Trump still promotes needless death and destruction.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
When the two fundamental rights/ideals conflict, life would logically take precedence over liberty. We can have life without liberty, but we can't have liberty without life. Which is why most judges have ruled in favor of the restrictions.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
No, two reasons.
He appointments judges who fail to realize the government is factually charged with promoting the general welfare of the public.
Of course, there are limitations on how far government
may go pursuing this. It will be argued over by people
taking reasonable but opposing positions.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Of course, there are limitations on how far government
may go pursuing this. It will be argued over by people
taking reasonable but opposing positions.
Yes. But the government went further a century ago and took steps we need to take today, like criminalizing not wearing a mask because that does have an effect of others.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Government has indeed previously gone too far IMO.
Mandating people actually do something that is mere inconvenience to mitigate pandemic spread is not going too far. If they did it this time wed look more like other Western nations instead of still struggling hard with this. Sort of like how we do have laws against drunk driving, which don't go far enough.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Mandating people actually do something that is mere inconvenience to mitigate pandemic spread is not going too far. If they did it this time wed look more like other Western nations instead of still struggling hard with this. Sort of like how we do have laws against drunk driving, which don't go far enough.
Some of the mandates have been more than mere inconvenience,
eg, prohibiting professions that can be done safely. There's still
the question of how far government can go.
The fed banning evictions is completely unconstitutional.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
When the two fundamental rights/ideals conflict, life would logically take precedence over liberty. We can have life without liberty, but we can't have liberty without life. Which is why most judges have ruled in favor of the restrictions.
"People who sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither".
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Mandating people actually do something that is mere inconvenience to mitigate pandemic spread is not going too far. If they did it this time wed look more like other Western nations instead of still struggling hard with this. Sort of like how we do have laws against drunk driving, which don't go far enough.
Having your business and livelihood intentionally destroyed is not a "mere inconvenience".
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Having your business and livelihood intentionally destroyed is not a "mere inconvenience".
Its happened to a lot of us. Its called a disaster. It would have been far worse in terms of sickness and death had the lockdowns not happened. We can look at so many other countries who didnt half *** all this, amd today they are overall looking much better than America.
Wearing a mask though, as was the point in my post, is a mere trivial inconvenience.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Are you against drunk driving laws?
Yes. Im against the law itself but before you flame me for that, I'm not against employing far harsher penalties against people who actually hurt or kill someone as a result of their drinking.

The reason is over the systematic practice of penalizing people who did not kill or hurt vs those who actually do, that requires punishment.
 
Top