|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Aug 4, 2021 13:31:06 GMT -5
Pro-life/pro-choice arguments aside, I don't see how well Roe and/or Casey apply to the debate over legality of the vaccine mandate, because the first choice involves the health consequences for one individual, and the second choice is consequential not only for that individual but also all the people she's had contact with, and all the people those people have had contact with, etc. Wait, are you implying there’s some kind of difference between pregnancy and communicable airborne viruses? |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Aug 4, 2021 14:15:05 GMT -5
Griswold, Roe and Casey were never about one individual's autonomous rights, but the balance between the privacy interests of the individual and the interests of the state. In Roe and Casey, it was the state's interest in protecting the unborn. In Griswold, it was public health. We don't have a national vaccine mandate, which I believe would be constitutional, whether I support one or not, because the state has a cognizable interest in stopping a deadly virus. We have state and federal mask mandates of various kinds.
I think the hardest constitutional issue is proving the state (or federal) interest in masking for vaccinated individuals. The government would have to establish an interest in masking them versus their privacy (?) right to wear or not wear a mask. I don't think any of this is clear-cut, so I can't predict how it would be resolved. It might turn on expert testimony about the efficacy of masks.
What is likely to be stricken as unconstitutional is CDC's new eviction order since the USSC just said that it was up to Congress, not the CDC to make law.
|
|
|
|
Post by TigerLaw on Aug 5, 2021 20:26:32 GMT -5
Griswold, Roe and Casey were never about one individual's autonomous rights, but the balance between the privacy interests of the individual and the interests of the state. In Roe and Casey, it was the state's interest in protecting the unborn. In Griswold, it was public health. We don't have a national vaccine mandate, which I believe would be constitutional, whether I support one or not, because the state has a cognizable interest in stopping a deadly virus. We have state and federal mask mandates of various kinds. I think the hardest constitutional issue is proving the state (or federal) interest in masking for vaccinated individuals. The government would have to establish an interest in masking them versus their privacy (?) right to wear or not wear a mask. I don't think any of this is clear-cut, so I can't predict how it would be resolved. It might turn on expert testimony about the efficacy of masks. What is likely to be stricken as unconstitutional is CDC's new eviction order since the USSC just said that it was up to Congress, not the CDC to make law. Thank you JAGVET for being the first one to give an honest analysis of the current situation as applied to law. This is what I have been trying to cultivate amongst our members. Although I may have initially approached it in a way to provoke an initial response, the ultimate goal was to get people thinking and posting intelligent legal analysis into the conversation to help educate us all. Thank you. Too funny  , while it has been a couple of decades since I was on the law review blue booking legal analysis, I quickly realized that JAGVET's "shooting from the hip" with no citations or actual Supreme Court holdings other than what every 3rd year law student understands about the penumbra "rights to privacy" created under that line of cases, is hardly legal analysis and focuses on the wrong legal question. The conflict between the Commerce Clause, Congressional legislation on the subject matter, the power of the several States to regulate all matters within their state under the 10th Amendment, and any review of the law concerning matters relating to the "health and welfare" of the general public would not involve the "right to privacy"! The courts would dismiss without any serious discussions the issue of "rights to privacy" and focus on the line of cases that dates back 100s of years in Supreme Court holdings that can be summed up in the following sentence. "The individual right sinks in the necessity to provide for the public good!" Not blue booking my comments, but that is a good line that is cited in this article, if you wish to read more. No offense meant by this comment, but I don't see this as a right to privacy and neither would the Supreme Court. IMHO Tiger www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2267241/ |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Aug 6, 2021 0:08:58 GMT -5
I don't understand @tigerlaw's comment. I didn't say vaccinations were consitutionally suspect, I said mask requirements were. Of course, a century before Griswold, the courts would dismiss a privacy claim. It was Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) which was the first case to actually find a personal right to privacy, although the justices were all over the map in trying to decide in which amendment the right existed (1st, 3rd, 4th and 9th were cited). In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), a plurality found the right in the word "liberty" in the 14th Amendment.
The declaration, "The individual right sinks in the necessity to provide for the public good!" shows up in some early quarantine cases and is supposed to have originated with Cicero, but law is not decided by reciting trite platitudes.
This Board is not a law review. It is a place to share thoughts. The article cited by @tigerlaw is also not a legal piece. It was a rambling polemic by a professor of sociomedical sciences published by The European Molecular Biology Organization, and republished on the NIH website. Note the word "behaviour."
|
|
|
|
Post by carrickfergus on Aug 6, 2021 6:52:29 GMT -5
Not sure I understand why mandatory masking would be more constitutionally suspect than mandatory vaccines. They both have been proven effective at reducing the risks of contracting and spreading covid, except the latter is much more invasive and involves several factors that the former does not (religious exemptions, access, health concerns over vaccines, etc.).
|
|
|
|
Post by TigerLaw on Aug 6, 2021 10:45:23 GMT -5
I don't understand @tigerlaw's comment. I didn't say vaccinations were consitutionally suspect, I said mask requirements were. Of course, a century before Griswold, the courts would dismiss a privacy claim. It was Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) which was the first case to actually find a personal right to privacy, although the justices were all over the map in trying to decide in which amendment the right existed (1st, 3rd, 4th and 9th were cited). In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), a plurality found the right in the word "liberty" in the 14th Amendment. The declaration, "The individual right sinks in the necessity to provide for the public good!" shows up in some early quarantine cases and is supposed to have originated with Cicero, but law is not decided by reciting trite platitudes. This Board is not a law review. It is a place to share thoughts. The article cited by @tigerlaw is also not a legal piece. It was a rambling polemic by a professor of sociomedical sciences published by The European Molecular Biology Organization, and republished on the NIH website. Note the word "behaviour." Oh, I understand your point very well. You would like to argue that the right to privacy is the constitutional concerns raised in the pandemic related mandates to protect the greater society from the spread of death and disease, and hence why I disagree. From vaccines to quarantines, there literally are cases dating back to the Revolutionary War focusing on those legal issues and are based upon an entirely different line of cases and powers of the States and Federal Government to mandate, regulate, and dictate the conduct of others while in the public spaces outside their castles, not the "right to privacy" case laws which by-the-way is focusing on personal decisions concerning a person's body and conduct within the privacy of their homes, or within marriage, but you do you. As far as platitudes, they work just fine to convey the overall theme of a line of cases dating back to the 1800s and makes a salient point, if you are looking at the correct legal issues. Buck v. Bell's "three generations of imbeciles are enough" seems overly crude and unprofessional platitude in these modern times, but every law student in American remembers that infamous line from Justice Holmes' decision, that's if they paid attention in law school! |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Aug 6, 2021 12:33:22 GMT -5
I finally understand why @tigerlaw is confused. I'm not arguing any point. I am saying there are legitimate issues and Realtors v. CDC shows that the Supreme Court is ready to take them on.
Buck v. Bell is not just crude, it is a hideous example of our history of eugenics. The "science" of the period was that the disabled don't deserve to procreate. Obviously, no one endorsing that "science" should be allowed to decide OHO cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by lurkerbelow on Aug 6, 2021 15:08:29 GMT -5
Too funny , while it has been a couple of decades since I was on the law review blue booking legal analysis, My condolences for your time of suffering. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Aug 7, 2021 6:36:27 GMT -5
We can discuss this without becoming inflammatory. Use respect toward fellow board members.
I'm going to close this thread for a while to give everyone a chance to see this message and pattern their behavior accordingly. Pixie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Aug 7, 2021 15:18:59 GMT -5
This thread is reopened. Let's all be civil and exercise diplomacy. Pixie
|
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Aug 7, 2021 19:39:55 GMT -5
Brothers and Sisters of the board, I can care less about the law. We all know what SCOTUS will do-side with the right wing anti-vacciners regardless of precedent.
What sticks in my craw is cancelling vacations, not being able to take leave because it’s not safe to travel, wearing a mask, and back to social distancing after a tantalizing couple of months of normal life. All due to idiots that are either too ignorant or don’t care about their fellow citizens to take a perfectly safe vaccine.
Let’s be civil but also realistic. Anybody on this board is smart enough to know better!
|
|
|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on Aug 8, 2021 7:51:02 GMT -5
Like it or not, our individual "freedoms", "autonomy", "independence" are governed and regulated on a daily basis, and we can be fined if we don't comply, or even lose our property.
Examples are certainly not limited to
a. seat belt/child restraint laws (which affects my freedom to bounce about the car as I wish, wrinkles my clothes, and caused a similar "uproar" when enacted);
b. speed limit laws (which adversely affect my own freedom to travel as fast as I would like);
c. traffic signs and lights, (which impede my ability to go where I want, when I want. Wrong way on a street, who says?);
d. smoking indoors at public places; (it's my body, why can't I smoke? secondhand smoke isn't real);
e. eminent domain (nope it isn't your castle if the government wants it) (setting aside the landlord who finds out too late his tenant was cooking meth, and his property was confiscated).
At least some of the laws enacted are based upon the unwillingness of people to protect themselves, thus causing the very result they dread the most, more laws.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Aug 8, 2021 9:11:29 GMT -5
I have deleted two posts, not because the were objectionable, but because they lectured members of the board. Well, the second one didn't lecture, but was funny. But it quoted the first one.
I am the one who does the lecturing here. It may not be out in the open as I often take care of things in private. Let's all get along like we know we can. Diplomacy in speech goes a long way in ensuring that we get along. Pixie
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Aug 8, 2021 9:46:04 GMT -5
I’d love to see a Venn diagram of those who won’t be convinced to take the vaccine and those that believe the current administration and deep state stole the election. While there is obviously some significant overlap between the groups, it is not to the degree that the prevailing narrative would have you believe. There was a story in NY Times this past weekend that went into greater detail as to whom the unvaccinated are. Unsurprisingly, economic circumstances and access to health care is a factor (even if the vaccine is available to everyone, if you are not someone who typically gets treatment or sees a doctor you are less likely to seek out the vaccine. People in rural areas are less likely to be vaccinated. But, on the other hand, only half of Cook County Illinois and Los Angelas have been vaccinated. In NYC most of Manhattan south of 96th Street is vaccinated, but not so much the outer boroughs, particularly in areas like the South Bronx or East New York. So, while there is no doubt that there is an (incredibly depressing) political correlation between rabid Trump supporters and those refusing vaccines, there are also plenty of people not getting the vaccine for other reasons. I would suggest there is a difference between can’t, haven’t, and won’t, but even when limited to those who won’t get the vaccine because they won’t be convinced, it wouldn’t be a perfect circle. |
|
|
|
Post by lurkerbelow on Aug 8, 2021 10:15:53 GMT -5
I have deleted two posts, not because the were objectionable, but because they lectured members of the board. Well, the second one didn't lecture, but was funny. But it quoted the first one. I am the one who does the lecturing here. It may not be out in the open as I often take care of things in private. Let's all get along like we know we can. Diplomacy in speech goes a long way in ensuring that we get along. Pixie You are the boss. My opinions on the subject of lawyers misbehaving will not change, but I will keep them to myself. |
|
|
|
Post by charlsiekate on Aug 10, 2021 13:02:38 GMT -5
I support vaccine mandates across the board because then we wouldn’t have to talk about masks, masks are a huge hassle especially in super humid places like the scorching sun terrarium landscape I inhabit, where sunglasses and masks and AC do not work as a team. There are many other reasons - but you either know them already or you don't want to hear them from me, and arguing about it is bad for my mental health. That being said, re:mandates and laws that protect people from themselves - I will never stop being mad that in South Carolina (a terrarium second only to Florida), it is illegal for me to drive my steel box with airbags without my seatbelt, but it’s totally legal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet and you don’t even need a driver’s license to drive a moped. Guess what subset of society likes to go places and doesn’t have a drivers license? Drunk people who def don’t have on a helmet. Who thought this was a good idea? Speaking of the terrarium life, I finally got a photo of my favorite roach eating neighbor today during lunch. I think this is the wife because there is a definitely another larger blacker skink living in my yard/carport. I’m hoping they are taking care of the extensive cicada killer wasps in the front yard. It’s so nice having housemates who contribute, my dog needs to take notes.  |
|
|
|
Post by lurkerbelow on Aug 10, 2021 21:58:38 GMT -5
I'd like to hear more about these fascinating neighbors of yours! Do they do house calls?
|
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Aug 11, 2021 17:20:31 GMT -5
I am reminded of my early childhood when the government mandated that everyone take the Polio vaccine. (I wanted it twice because the sugar cube tasted nice). Nobody screamed and yelled about government over-reach. My dad was in the local Rescue Squad (volunteers doing what now the EMS gets paid to do), and they had a big iron lung there on display - and he explained what it was for. (If you do not know, Google it.)
If you were sending your child to school, not knowing if all the others had been vaccinated, would you take the risk that they had not? A dear friend's 55 year old daughter refused to get the vaccine, and caught COVID along with her spouse. Her mother talked to her yesterday morning and urged her to go to the hospital after hearing her cough. She refused - saying there was nothing they could do. Two hours later, she stopped breathing and could not be revived.
I saw a t-shirt saying VACCINATED, then in smaller letters underneath: because I am not stupid. I did not order it, afraid I might get shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Aug 12, 2021 21:54:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by carrickfergus on Aug 13, 2021 8:09:55 GMT -5
|
|
, while it has been a couple of decades since I was on the law review blue booking legal analysis, I quickly realized that JAGVET's "shooting from the hip" with no citations or actual Supreme Court holdings other than what every 3rd year law student understands about the penumbra "rights to privacy" created under that line of cases, is hardly legal analysis and focuses on the wrong legal question. The conflict between the Commerce Clause, Congressional legislation on the subject matter, the power of the several States to regulate all matters within their state under the 10th Amendment, and any review of the law concerning matters relating to the "health and welfare" of the general public would not involve the "right to privacy"! The courts would dismiss without any serious discussions the issue of "rights to privacy" and focus on the line of cases that dates back 100s of years in Supreme Court holdings that can be summed up in the following sentence. "The individual right sinks in the necessity to provide for the public good!" Not blue booking my comments, but that is a good line that is cited in this article, if you wish to read more. No offense meant by this comment, but I don't see this as a right to privacy and neither would the Supreme Court. IMHO 
