I'm trying to understand where you draw the line between personal rights and where you believe these rights are violated. Right now, it seems to be very subjective for you.
Three more New York sheriffs say they won’t enforce Cuomo’s Thanksgiving limit
- Thread starter Tsing Tao
- Start date
I'm trying to understand where you draw the line between personal rights and where you believe these rights are violated. Right now, it seems to be very subjective for you.
I don’t draw the line, that’s the whole idea of having an organized nation with laws and reviews.
So how do you make the determination as to whether someone is violating your individual rights? If you provide some context here, this might be a better conversation.
Both have to do with a fundamental right of privacy. The woman with her body, the Thanksgiving hosts with who they allow in their home.
Looking at this separately from Roe v. Wade, how would this not be a complete violation of the Fourth Amendment? Are judges going to be issuing warrants in order for police to show up and get a headcount?
I would review the law and if I felt necessary sue.
My family has a cabin like house out in western Massachusetts. I took my kids and wife there last weekend. Sheriff pulled up and checked on us and reminded us about the limit on people in Massachusetts. No problem.
Now I don’t agree with Roe v Wade on the basis of the ruling but within RW it does not recognize a fetus as a person, therefore the woman is not harming anyone else. With limited gatherings the danger is in the harming of others who may not be consenting, such as second and third parties who may not attend but get the virus from someone who did.
I get the dangers of it. It's obvious that the more people who gather, the higher risk of transmission. The responsible thing is no gatherings with people outside your home. However, the Fourth Amendment clearly takes precedent over all of this. It's completely unenforceable. The sheriff showing up at your house is concerning. Never in my life has law enforcement came to my house.
If I was forced to argue the limitations restrictions on a constitutional basis I would argue from a first amendment standpoint first, right to assemble, right to worship, right to celebrate etc.
I think the fourth amendment would not hold up if say there was noticeable people, noise or a conspicuous number of cars.
You have now recrafted your statements.
Kind of a bullshit way to argue.
Also drawing conclusions about questions from the bench is as tough as reading tea leaves.
I have zero confidence in your ability to do it well.
Sometimes the justices are probing the extent of a potential ruling, sometimes making a point to a different judgement or anything else. An argument made from the bench can be a softball or fastball to the head depending on factors which way may not be able to ever know.
Kind of a bullshit way to argue.
Also drawing conclusions about questions from the bench is as tough as reading tea leaves.
I have zero confidence in your ability to do it well.
Sometimes the justices are probing the extent of a potential ruling, sometimes making a point to a different judgement or anything else. An argument made from the bench can be a softball or fastball to the head depending on factors which way may not be able to ever know.
Last edited:
I love reading lefties trying to group constitutional and freedom loving conservatives into big Trump fans of trump.
such a bullshit way to argue.
such a bullshit way to argue.