Federal Judge Rules Pennsylvania Lockdown rules Unconstituional

This should not be a surprise to folks that know the basic Constitution, and what past laws and precedents are. I'm posting because, I spent 3 months away from my home and the board, and was surprised how many progressives did not have any sympathies for folks trying to reopen their businesses with Covid precautions in place, against the lockdowns that had crept two months past their deadlines...

I watched a good Pennsylvania You-tuber cover this in depth last night. Even with the Spanish Flu the restrictions lasted only one month!


Besides all that many of these Government restrictions were not even consistent and had no precedent. Our government actions actually seem to be more modeled on China than any legal precedent of the past.

The video below very good at covering the order, and showing how screwed up the Lock down were. These actions largely did not stop "non-essential activities". So people for example who wanted to buy new furniture would be restricted to go shopping at your average small furniture store. But because places like Walmart left open, they could bring their business to the large chains meanwhile driving the smaller stores out of business...


Judge rules Pennsylvania's pandemic restrictions unconstitutional

Paulos23 said:

The restrictions would only last a month if everyone would have followed them.

Now we all are having to continue it for longer because of people that want their freedom regardless of cost to others.

Click to expand...

That just not true.

1) Cuomo himself at one point pointed out that the cases were surging with "stay at home" folks. And plenty of hospital workers and other people religiously using the masks, hand disinfecting etc. still got sick in spite of their best efforts. The masks etc. are protection but not something all powerful when it comes to prevention.



2) Besides this I will have to cite one of my favorite atheists, Albert Ellis, creator of Rational Emotive Therapy, a psychotherapy/counseling approach based on getting people to question their irrational beliefs when it comes to emotional disturbances. Most irrational beliefs according to him involve "Absolutes" as well as other kinds of perfectionistic attitudes etc. Expecting everyone, or all people to conform is just not rationale. People are like cats in a free society, as far the saying about "herding them" goes. Even in police states where you have something close to perfect compliance, you don't have perfect compliance.


3) Finally there are the protesters. Those might have started out as conservatives protesting rights some of which were not using masks, but then came George Floyd and all the BLM stuff. And lots of shots of people not following guidelines and stay at home orders and politicians took a more permissive view of that when it came to the Floyd end of things.

Arcangl86 said:

I'm curious to see if it survives appeal. The right to assemble isn't an absolute right, and the 14th Amendment argument seems to be based on Locher which, while never being formally overturn, is still widely seen as bad law.

Click to expand...

Not Bad law. The Supreme Court recognizes "the core of the concept" of Substantive Due Process. Which is the need of individuals to be protected from the arbitrary actions of government. Their needs to be a "rational basis" for government action, and actions that are found to be irrational, arbitrary or capricious do not fit that. And at 1:12 (1 hour 12 minutes he covers that).

The story continues....

Bad news for liberal PA governor.... who incidentally is my governor as of this last December...

This whole issue is a bit of a Chinese finger trap for liberals. The more they fight it, they run a serious risk of making the rulings form it more significant in US law and that is really bad for them. At least that is what was said in previous videos where the Canadian guy here is talking to a US video Lawyer and Vblogger.