Coronavirus

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Clean, Jan 28, 2020.

  1. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    Two questions. Are executive orders never appropriate? Did you have the same criticism of Abbott when he locked down businesses in 2020?
     
  2. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    They can be appropriate, but they have to be within the governor's authority (or the president's authority at the federal level) to be legitimate. Is he executing a law on the books, or is he making up something new?

    I question the wisdom of some of that, but the Government Code gives him pretty broad authority to fight public health disasters. Creating an exception to the at-will doctrine that, if anything, prevents people from fighting the public health disaster is very attenuated from any legal authority that he has.

    And again, I don't like the vaccine mandate. I think it's bad policy, but one can support resisting it without supporting how the resistance is done.
     
  3. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    I guess I need to understand EOs more. Are they only intended to carry out laws on the books? Is it the same for governors?

    He violated the frickin' Texas Constitution. If you can't criticize that with the same force then I am not sure you are concerned with the governor's authority but about the policy itself. Which means you are for violating the Texas Constitution for a perceived health crisis, going against EVERYTHING economists and health professionals had said up until November 2019. But you are against the governor contradicting by EO Biden's announcement that some day OSHA will write a fascistic regulation around vaccinations.

    I mean he caused a huge economic disaster as long as the lock down was in place. Policy to shut non-COVID cases out of hospitals also is predicted to result in a huge increase in cancer deaths since screening and early treatments were delayed.

    One can disagree with how resistance is done. I would much prefer a law. But at this point the EO was to protect citizen's freedoms so I won't gripe about it too much. Politicians rarely do anything to protect liberties these days so I won't nitpick the one time they do.
     
  4. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Yes.

    This has to do with the merits of the EOs, not their legitimacy.

    At least you admit that the ends justify the means, and that's fine. Just don't complain when the Biden Administration abuses its power.
     
  5. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    They all abuse their power. The Constitution is basically done for. I care about means but it's hard for me not to focus on ends at this point in time. The Left hasn't abided by procedure for decades. If the Right plays by one set of rules and the Left another, the Left will destroy our country. Not sure how to go back to both sides playing by the same rules without serious disruption of the current system.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    None of them are legitimate, right? But isn't it at least better when defending citizens' rights?
     
  7. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    You're right. The Left abuses its power routinely and doesn't care about the rule of law. However, we're not going to restore the rule of law by abusing power ourselves. For the first time since the New Deal, we have a Supreme Court that actually cares what the law says. Let it do its job, and let our governors, legislatures, and state courts do theirs.
     
  8. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Yes, but they are separate issues. An EO that is illegitimate doesn't become more legitimate based on what it's doing.

    If the Supreme Court came down with some ruling making abortion illegal in all 50 states, I might say it's better than Roe because it's persevering life rather than destroying it. However, it would still be an abuse of power, and I would still condemn it, because operating by written rules and laws matters to me more than getting my way on a policy issue.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    True. My problem is that how do you get the Left to agree to follow rule of law? They are getting worse not better. We just watched 2020 where Leftist violent mobs killed dozens of people and destroyed billions of dollars of property. The Left ran cover for them a myriad of ways. The Left now calls concerned parents at school board meetings "domestic terrorists". They criminalize the oil and gas industry. And on and on and on.

    What can the Right do today in real life to stem the tide? The Left doesn't respect rule of law. How can the Right push back in a way that will make any difference? I agree that writing EOs isn't the proper way when I look at the Constitutions and the assigned powers of the branches of government. Abbott could do so much more as he sets the agenda for the Tex Leg special sessions. He doesn't do much. He is super frustrating. Then the things he does do are half-assed and in the case of the EO, improper and probably ineffectual. In that real world context, should I grouse and criticize the thing he was actually willing to do to protect freedom? Or should I be thankful that he did something and support the idea behind protecting citizens?
     
  10. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    Maybe I am wrong but the Supreme Court doesn't seem to be holding the line like we thought they would. Maybe I am wrong, I admit.

    I welcome politicians doing their jobs to restore rule of law. I don't see anyone doing that except for Thomas Massie and Rand Paul. Occasionally Ted Cruz pops his head up and criticizes Facebook or a government agency. But I don't really seeing anyone doing their jobs. I will have to take that back if they can stop the Build Back Better program.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    First, you distinguish between liberals and the Left. The Left won't agree to follow the law. Liberals will. Try to convince them to break with the Left. I'm talking about the intellectual dark web types - Bari Weiss, Weinstein (Bret, not Harvey), Joe Rogan, Sam Harris, etc.

    Second, you make a serious intellectual pitch to them. Some incoherent, insulting blowhard like Donald Trump isn't going to cut it.

    Third, we need credibility. We can't be breaking the rules we say we care about.

    You don't. You beat them.

    Abbott is running for president or at least considering it. An EO gets his name in the news. Putting legislation on the agenda doesn't have anywhere near the PR impact, because he has to share attention with the Legislature.

    They've had control of the Court for less than a year. It takes time for issues to reach them.

    Unfortunately the public rewards blowhards and hypocrites more than it rewards guardians of the rule of law.

    I think the BBB program will fail or be greatly scaled back. However, let's remember that it's only on the menu because be f'd up in Georgia. We can't be that stupid and make a lot of unforced errors and expect to win political battles. When you throw five interceptions, you usually lose.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  12. mb227

    mb227 5,000+ Posts

    As relates to the differences between Abbott EO's and those from #EmptyShelvesJoe, I believe Abbott uses his as a placeholder until enough people actually bother to show up in the TxLege to the business OF the TxLege. Much of what Abbott seeks to do would pass the TxLege if the Dems would quit doing their filibuster with a field trip nonsense.

    Biden, on the other hand, believes (or his handlers believe) that the office is tantamount to that of a king.
     
  13. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    @Garmel , put the debauchery aside for a minute and tell me why am I wrong. :smile1:
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  14. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    1) If Abbott has to play with the rules to stop a president playing with the rules who's trying to force BS on us then so be it. MonaHorns is right. This is an excellent countermeasure that will buy time to see if Biden's EO is even legal, which it probably isn't. You want to be on the side of "what's right by the law" where I care about stopping tyranny.

    2) The blaming of Trump for a situation that was caused by the republicans in Georgia who thought it was a good idea to allow massive mail in ballots with no ID. They came to their senses and changed the laws so this won't happen again but at what cost? Let's be honest here about the two senators. One was probably involved with insider trading and the other had the charisma of a tree stump. It was a close election and without the BS even they probably win.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    But is Abbott actually stopping anything? Keep in mind that Biden's EO doesn't get nullified by Abbott's. Only going to court would do that. When SH says Abbott's EO a virtue signal, he's pretty much right. If OSHA comes after an employer who doesn't follow Biden's EO, nothing that Abbott did will make any difference.

    We won plenty of races with a lot of mail-in balloting. Keep in mind that we almost retook the House in an election in which we were expected to lose seats. The big impact in Georgia was that we started doing poorly in the suburbs. We made up for it to a point with greater rural support, but those voters don't turn out as reliably. It especially didn't help that a bunch of idiots were suggesting they not vote in the special elections.

    They were mediocre candidates. That is true. However, mediocrity has generally been good enough in Georgia, and they were up against two candidates with a lot of liabilities. Milquetoast mediocrity should have defeated a Jeremiah Wright starter kit who beat his wife and a young nerd, both of whom are very liberal by Georgia standards. (Notice that neither of them are helping out on the BBB legislation.) It took unforced errors to lose to those guys.
     
  16. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    Maybe. Lawsuits from Abbott will tie up OSHA if they try something. Not concerned about them. If Abbott tries to stop any Texas companies from doing vaccine mandates the feds will sue and tie up the situation as well. It's a stalemate. I agree with you about people like Wood and Powell saying not to vote wasn't helpful. However, the republican turnout for Georgia wasn't bad. Stacey Abrams made it happen in Georgia. Mchammer thinks along with me that massive ballot harvesting was also more than likely occurring in Ga.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2021
  17. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    True liberals are distinguishing themselves. Many if not most of them are identifying as libertarian. I'm just not sure how many there are who will be willing to stop voting D and realign themselves. The longer the crazy stuff goes on the more will identify themselves but it will be a slow process. Not sure if the timeline will work out.

    I agree with your second point. But much of the Right is still so attached to Trump I'm not sure how this is possible. If Trump would fade to the back, there is much more of a chance, but that isn't who he is.

    Yeah. You're right. The challenge there is that these politicians will have to be principled and aggressive. The Rs aren't either of those things.

    The assumption is that you can with that gameplan. I want to believe it but I am skeptical.

    Okay. So you're saying there is very little chance of the gameplan working.

    This what Rs always do. Lose. The BBB program will be scaled back which means our country takes 3 more steps to oblivion instead of 10. I'm not interested in losing anymore. Conservative, traditional American values have been losing for 120 years.

    I get what you are saying about Georgia. I am also not completely sure what happened there, but if Rs didn't vote when there was such an important situation at hand, then my faith in R voters descends even lower.

    I personally think Abbott is a squish who doesn't really want to fight Leftists. I think he has ambitions and knows he can't fall too far behind DeSantis. But DeSantis has promised laws and law suits challenging the mandates. Abbott isn't willing to actually do something so forceful. But I appreciate the tokens he gives since it is better than nothing.

    He already violated the Texas Constitution by his stay at home orders. He is an abuser of power, period. Knowing he is what he is I would rather him fumble around in ways that could protect freedom versus destroying our freedoms.
     
  18. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    You are correct and missing the point at the same time. The EO won't do anything. A law doesn't do anything either. Action does something. State nullification of unconstitutional law is was something many of the founders discussed as a means to fight Federal tyranny. Abbott virtue signaling is a message that Texas will push back. If that is all he will do it means nothing. But if he will continue to take steps and refuse Federal action and protect employees from unconstitutional fascist public/private collusion, then this is a start. Shoot. OSHA itself is unconstitutional. Abolish it.

    Or maybe election fraud? Who knows? Trump wasn't on the ballot. Suburbanites in Georgia didn't have to vote for him there. So what kept them at home? They didn't like Trump, right? So why would they listen to Trump's stupid comments about not voting. Either these were Trump voters staying home or they were previous R voters who found Trump distasteful. It can't be both, one for the Presidential election and the other for the recall election.
     
  19. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    But the lawsuits could just as easily happen without Abbott's EO. The state could bring suit. Any business covered by Biden's EO could bring suit. And that's why Husker is right when he calls it a virtue signal. When it comes to actually fighting Biden's EO, it doesn't do anything to help.

    But it does put attention on Abbott that will be helpful in a Republican presidential primary if he chooses to run. It signals his virtue to Republican primary voters. I know we usually use "virtue signal" to ridicule, but it's literally applicable here.
     
  20. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Yes, because we screw it up. Most of us don't value the rule of law as a principle. We only bring the issue up when the other side is abusing it.

    We're losing because we screwed up. Warnock and Jon Ossof don't have to be in the Senate today, and Charles Schumer doesn't have to be majority leader. If you don't want to lose, don't let ******** like that happen again.

    It's not better than nothing. It's worse than nothing, because though it signals a stance you and I may like in the merits, it also signals that he's willing to abuse his power. That's a net-negative.

    The difference is that a law has procedural legitimacy. Someone could take Abbott's EO to court and get it invalidated without a court reaching the merits and without dealing with its conflict with Biden's EO. That isn't true of a statute or common law ruling from the Texas Supreme Court.

    That's fine. Pass a law, and do it.

    It's a combination of things. As a matter of branding, the party and its candidates traded educated suburbanites for more rural voters. Though Trump took this deal to much higher levels, it's a party-wide phenomenon. The suburbanites largely didn't stay home. The rural voters that we decided to embrace even harder stayed home compared to urban and suburban voters who are voting more Democratic than they did before. That's why we lost those Senate seats.

    And what's frightening is that the map for '22 isn't especially good. There are opportunities but no easy flips and potential chances to lose seats. If we lose one, we're things get really bad. If we lose two, things like court packing are on the table.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  21. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    Using your logic Biden's EO is useless because nothing will be done except for lawsuits on their side as well.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  22. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Biden has lots of control over federal contactors. Combined with OSHA the EO has significant reach. Not to every business but if a business sells goods or services to the Feds they got you by the short and curlies. Labor regulations by OSHA can and will be fought in court. They'll likely lose as the SCOTUS has affirmed vaccine mandates multiple times in the past.

    Not saying that Biden isn't also virtue signaling. Every EO could be taken as a virtue signal.
     
  23. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    I wouldn't be using the 1905 Massachusetts case as a precedent. Recent losses in the courts from states trying to stop churches from gathering using the 1905 law haven't worked.

    Precedent from the 1905 case led to forced sterilizations from laws created later for the "public good".

    "under the pressure of great dangers” to “the safety of the general public.” The statute, by its terms, encroached on liberty only when “necessary for the public health or safety.”

    Not sure a disease with more than a 99% survival rate is a "great danger". Seriously, if the SCOTUS allows this could vaccine mandates for the flu be next?

    Saying that Roberts and Barrett could swing left on this.

    Not knowing the long term effects of a rushed drug and forcing people against their will to take it is appalling. 20-30 years from now we could be condemning a lot of people to serious medical conditions.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2021
  24. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    LOL! What's a few million deaths? Let's also ignore long-term health problems from survivors. Incidentally, we already know where the SCOTUS stands on the issue. They've already ruled for mandates by NY Public Schools, against the teachers. Each case will be decided on it's merits of course but in every case so far they've allowed vaccine mandates to stand. That includes colleges. Clearly the SCOTUS thinks this is much more of a "great danger" than the arm-chair Doctors on West Mall.
     
  25. mb227

    mb227 5,000+ Posts

    With the increase in problems with 'fully vaxxed' individuals, I suspect you are going to see some pushback on those mandates in future rulings...especially with the news that Powell was fully vaccinated.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  26. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    Like this one from one liberal judge and not the whole court? U.S. Supreme Court's Sotomayor allows New York school vaccine mandate

    The flu has killed millions over time as well. Do we need another mandate for that?

    Armchair doctors? LOL! I really wish you would quit responding to me. I don't like you and I don't like interacting with you. I probably need to put you back on Ignore.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2021
  27. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Increase in "problems" meaning severity of sickness is less than unvaccinated individuals? So far, any evidence of problems with the vaccine have been rare and documented.
     
  28. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    Colin Powell died today due to complications of Covid. One can only presume he was a vaccine denier.
     
  29. humahuma

    humahuma 500+ Posts

    He was fully vaccinated from what I read.
     
  30. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    Logic does not compute. Hospitals are full of unvaccinated patients infected with Covid.
     

Share This Page