4 ms·

I'm fairly certain it was not in violation of "the law", but rather in violation of edicts from unelected officials.

wffurr 6y ago
"The law" gives public health officials authority to issue those "edicts". Try taking them to court and see how far that gets you. Hint: not very.
- fastball 6y ago
  Well, given how nobody was prosecuted, taking it to court seems unnecessary, which was my point.
  - martimarkov 6y ago
    Not being prosecuted is not the same as not guilty.
  - wffurr 6y ago
    If that was your point, you did a poor job of making it.
- logicchains 6y ago
  Some people seem to have done pretty well in court bringing a case against unconstitutional edicts: https://www.npr.org/2021/04/10/986010977/supreme-court-rules-for-worshippers-and-against-california-covid-restrictions https://www.npr.org/2021/04/10/986010977/supreme-court-rules...
  - wffurr 6y ago
    Restricting religion and regulating a factory are pretty different. The first runs directly afoul of the constitution, while the second is clearly within the purview of regulators and public health officials. I was thinking of Jacobson v Massachusetts in my original comment, which upheld state and local governments' broad authority in public health. Here's a balanced view of the powers affirmed in Jacobson and how that has changed over time to better protect individual liberty: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/ Note however that applies to individuals, not factories or places of business which are subject to much more regulation.
- nl 6y ago
  Ironically, I believe this was overturning a law made by elected officials (on constitutional grounds)
TomSwirly 6y ago
It makes me so sad that it's impossible to have a polite conversation these days without clinical paranoids popping in at every juncture to say, "COVID is a hoax! Public health officials are frauds! Medicine is meaningless!"
- fastball 6y ago
  Huh?
nonameiguess 6y ago
The California Executive Order creating a shutdown was issued by the Governor, who is elected.

"The law" gives public health officials authority to issue those "edicts". Try taking them to court and see how far that gets you. Hint: not very.

fastball 6y ago
Well, given how nobody was prosecuted, taking it to court seems unnecessary, which was my point.
- martimarkov 6y ago
  Not being prosecuted is not the same as not guilty.
- wffurr 6y ago
  If that was your point, you did a poor job of making it.
logicchains 6y ago
Some people seem to have done pretty well in court bringing a case against unconstitutional edicts: https://www.npr.org/2021/04/10/986010977/supreme-court-rules-for-worshippers-and-against-california-covid-restrictions https://www.npr.org/2021/04/10/986010977/supreme-court-rules...
- wffurr 6y ago
  Restricting religion and regulating a factory are pretty different. The first runs directly afoul of the constitution, while the second is clearly within the purview of regulators and public health officials. I was thinking of Jacobson v Massachusetts in my original comment, which upheld state and local governments' broad authority in public health. Here's a balanced view of the powers affirmed in Jacobson and how that has changed over time to better protect individual liberty: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/ Note however that applies to individuals, not factories or places of business which are subject to much more regulation.
nl 6y ago
Ironically, I believe this was overturning a law made by elected officials (on constitutional grounds)

TomSwirly 6y ago

It makes me so sad that it's impossible to have a polite conversation these days without clinical paranoids popping in at every juncture to say, "COVID is a hoax! Public health officials are frauds! Medicine is meaningless!"

fastball 6y ago
Huh?

nonameiguess 6y ago

The California Executive Order creating a shutdown was issued by the Governor, who is elected.