4 ms·

Whether or not you agree with the judge's reasoning: > "By failing to weigh the benefits of an outdoor dining restriction against its costs, the County acted a

by darawk 6y ago

Whether or not you agree with the judge's reasoning: > "By failing to weigh the benefits of an outdoor dining restriction against its costs, the County acted arbitrarily and its decision lacks a rational relationship to a legitimate end," wrote Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant in a tentative ruling issued Tuesday to a legal challenge from the California Restaurant Association. Why is the judge trying to evaluate the object-level claim by the state? Isn't the legal question here simply one of authority? Is there some kind of standard in the emergency powers law that says they have to meet some scientific-evidentiary threshold? Curious if anyone has more insight into this.

calvinmorrison 6y ago
Somewhere rubber meets the road. At what point are emergency powers "too far" so to speak?
- dehrmann 6y ago
  And "arbitrary" is one limitation to emergency powers.
zaroth 6y ago
The authority cannot be exercised arbitrarily. The authority is for a specific emergency health purpose, therefore these (otherwise illegal) restrictions which are being imposed under that specific authority must be justified.
googlryas 6y ago
The law is written that basically emergency powers are granted during a public health emergency, but the emergency powers can only be exercised in relation to the actual emergency. IE Gov Newsom can't declare a state of emergency for COVID, and then force everyone to get TDAP shots (even though it would be beneficial to public health overall), and he can't force everyone to wear two left shoes if science and reason don't support that helping in the emergency(even if he is personally convinced wearing two left shoes will protect you from COVID). So I believe it is that language in the law that the judge is using to question if the measures are actually associated with the public health emergency. This doc goes into the details a bit in plain language: https://emsa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/71/2019/03/New-EOM-Public-Health-and-Medical-Emergency-Powers-3-15-2019-002.pdf https://emsa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/71/2019/03/New-...
- Animats 6y ago
  CDPH (California Department of Public Health) has powers related to communicable disease control that are independent of an emergency proclamation. For example, whenever the public health is menaced, CDPH has the authority to control and regulate the actions of local health officials. At all times, CDPH has the authority to take measures necessary to ascertain the nature of a reported disease and prevent its spread. This could include orders for isolation, quarantine or “social distancing.” CDPH also has specific authority to quarantine, isolate, inspect, and disinfect persons, animals, houses, rooms, other property, places, cities, or localities, whenever in its judgment the action is necessary to protect or preserve the public health. Therefore, it is possible that CDPH may exercise these powers in addition to the roles and responsibilities assigned under the ESA and the SEP Those are not emergency powers. Those are normal public health powers.
tinus_hn 6y ago
Conversely, is there some kind of law that grants the government unlimited powers by claiming a relation with a disease? If not, who is to guard these limited powers?

by darawk 6y ago

calvinmorrison 6y ago

Somewhere rubber meets the road. At what point are emergency powers "too far" so to speak?

dehrmann 6y ago
And "arbitrary" is one limitation to emergency powers.

zaroth 6y ago

The authority cannot be exercised arbitrarily. The authority is for a specific emergency health purpose, therefore these (otherwise illegal) restrictions which are being imposed under that specific authority must be justified.

googlryas 6y ago

The law is written that basically emergency powers are granted during a public health emergency, but the emergency powers can only be exercised in relation to the actual emergency. IE Gov Newsom can't declare a state of emergency for COVID, and then force everyone to get TDAP shots (even though it would be beneficial to public health overall), and he can't force everyone to wear two left shoes if science and reason don't support that helping in the emergency(even if he is personally convinced wearing two left shoes will protect you from COVID). So I believe it is that language in the law that the judge is using to question if the measures are actually associated with the public health emergency. This doc goes into the details a bit in plain language: https://emsa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/71/2019/03/New-EOM-Public-Health-and-Medical-Emergency-Powers-3-15-2019-002.pdf https://emsa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/71/2019/03/New-...

Animats 6y ago
CDPH (California Department of Public Health) has powers related to communicable disease control that are independent of an emergency proclamation. For example, whenever the public health is menaced, CDPH has the authority to control and regulate the actions of local health officials. At all times, CDPH has the authority to take measures necessary to ascertain the nature of a reported disease and prevent its spread. This could include orders for isolation, quarantine or “social distancing.” CDPH also has specific authority to quarantine, isolate, inspect, and disinfect persons, animals, houses, rooms, other property, places, cities, or localities, whenever in its judgment the action is necessary to protect or preserve the public health. Therefore, it is possible that CDPH may exercise these powers in addition to the roles and responsibilities assigned under the ESA and the SEP Those are not emergency powers. Those are normal public health powers.

tinus_hn 6y ago

Conversely, is there some kind of law that grants the government unlimited powers by claiming a relation with a disease? If not, who is to guard these limited powers?