3 ms·

> This Supreme Court decision says nothing about the extent of the penalties; simply that it is within the government's rights to enforce health mandates. You

by xyzzyz 5y ago

> This Supreme Court decision says nothing about the extent of the penalties; simply that it is within the government's rights to enforce health mandates. You are misrepresenting the case. The extent of the penalties was implied here, because the case was about upholding or rejecting particular state law, which listed the specific penalties involved. > This decision is a referenced legal precedent cited for masking mandates, stay at home mandates, etc etc. The case -stemmed- from someone protesting being fined, but both the decision, and the ramifications, intentionally, are far further reaching than that. Wrongly so. See https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3906452 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3906452

lostcolony 5y ago
>> You are misrepresenting the case. There's a lovely bit in the Wikipedia article where it cites the decision. While it is not, obviously, the entire case, I feel it stands pretty well to show that the court was setting broader precedent than that one particular law. Certainly, it is very hard to say "this law is okay because (reason)" without also saying "(reason) is a good criteria to make laws from". At that point it's only a question of extent; there are laws and court precedents to prevent them from being arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable, but, again, this case still clearly allowed for punitive penalties for non-compliance, in exactly this situation. >> Wrongly so. Citing an opinion by a single assistant professor of an unheard of law school that says he doesn't believe this case should be used as precedent doesn't do anything to disprove my statement that it HAS been used as precedent (a statement of historical fact that I made), nor does it really strike me as particularly compelling that it SHOULDN'T be used as a precedent (a statement of opinion that maybe you assumed I was implying, but which nevertheless is immaterial to the argument being made).

by xyzzyz 5y ago

lostcolony 5y ago

>> You are misrepresenting the case. There's a lovely bit in the Wikipedia article where it cites the decision. While it is not, obviously, the entire case, I feel it stands pretty well to show that the court was setting broader precedent than that one particular law. Certainly, it is very hard to say "this law is okay because (reason)" without also saying "(reason) is a good criteria to make laws from". At that point it's only a question of extent; there are laws and court precedents to prevent them from being arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable, but, again, this case still clearly allowed for punitive penalties for non-compliance, in exactly this situation. >> Wrongly so. Citing an opinion by a single assistant professor of an unheard of law school that says he doesn't believe this case should be used as precedent doesn't do anything to disprove my statement that it HAS been used as precedent (a statement of historical fact that I made), nor does it really strike me as particularly compelling that it SHOULDN'T be used as a precedent (a statement of opinion that maybe you assumed I was implying, but which nevertheless is immaterial to the argument being made).