Thank you to these two men for standing up to tyranny. And thanks Rupa for your reporting. I've been enjoying watching your interviews.
Two things that I believe need to change in regards to government overreach in the US, in Canada, etc.:
1. Typically US courts don't decide the merits of a policy, but rather if an official or agency has the authority to make that policy. So political leaders can just say they are following the science, without having to support their arguments with actual science. But in murder cases or civil cases, there is typically a battle of the experts. Denying freedoms should be the absolute last type of public policy / law and if the science is unequivocal, then political leaders should be able to defend it in court.
2. And actually more important, when implementing policies to deny freedoms granted in the US Constitution or the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms, political leaders should have to defend their position in court BEFORE the restrictions are implemented. Citizens shouldn't have to sue to get their freedoms back. Freedoms shouldn't be denied without a just and defensible cause. Otherwise, our governments are stealing our freedoms and our most precious time, time that we can never get back. And I submit that they do not have that right.
The recent case in the US (EPA and WVA) may have significantly weakened Chevron Deference and may result in agencies having to actually defend their decisions in court.
Yes, as a result of the EPA /WVA case, we should expect see much more litigation challenging the Administrative State on the grounds of statutory over reach.
I'd like to see a Cloward-Piven strategy applied; go after them on everything from every agency. Swamp them (pun intended) with so much legal work that they can't do any regulatory work. Make their employees miserable. Hire PR firms to engage in propaganda.
I know...takes lots of money...If I would have won the recent mega-millions, I would have allocated at least half the funds for just that purpose...
It’s a good idea. No different than what the Democrats did with organizing, funding and executing their mail in ballot effort for the 2020 election. Except the Democrats pulled it off and the Republicans are still trying to figure out what happened.
When CT Gov. Lamont announced his ban on gatherings of more than five people, I filed suit in federal court to get it struck down. How much support or press did it get? You know the answer to that. It was only when he relented that late Spring to increase the indoor limit to 10 and 25 outdoor that I relented, knowing that I'd have to start anew, incurring more costs and time I did not have to spend. And the thanks I got from CT's beleaguered citizens? lol
I take your point, Bruce - but with all due respect - when did your governor do this? Were vaccines available? And to what extent?
If it was a year ago or less I heartily agree. People should mix freely when we understood Covid in depth.
But if it was early or mid or even late 2020 when no one, not you, not a doctor, not the CDC nor any authority worth its bloody name could guarantee some kind of outcome from Covid - what were responsible authorities supposed to do when thousands of obese and unhealthy Americans were dying by the day?
Remember that?
We all become armchair quarterbacks when we’re not responsible for anything..
Especially looking back now when we know 20/20 what should have been done, as opposed to appreciating the enormity of governors and others in power making decisions when information is scant and contradictory in real time.
As I’ve read elsewhere so many years ago - don’t let the ideology blind you to the reality.
It was really rather simple, Lee. Lamont claimed his edict was based on CDC guidance. But you may recall that CDC guidance at the time was to limit gatherings of 10 or more at risk people. So Lamont's action, which claimed no basis other than CDC guidance, was inconsistent with that guidance. It was twice as stringent and made no differentiation for risk. Moreover, it made no exception for families that might have had more than 5 members. It carried significant monetary penalties. As such it was a textbook case of over-reach without a rational basis. I believe I would have won that case and, in any rational society would have won it. But as I was a pro se litigant, absorbing all the costs myself, when he changed the rule I chalked it up as a "win." We make a huge mistake when we acquiesce to arbitrary power. And just because we're scared of a virus doesn't change things. As one SCOTUS member observed, the is no pandemic exception to the Bill of Rights.
All well here. A nice languid August. Hope the same for you and yours.
Well, I thank you. I have tried to explain to people that the reason they still have their freedoms is due to people like you that challenged the system, that didn't comply. I find that they mostly just regard me as irritating.
I'm sorry, but that's just plain pathetic, Sir Bruce. About what I would expect, but still...
You're probably lucky to be able to afford it. Most wouldn't. Well, most wouldn'a tried, even if they had the money, so there is that.. I dunno what else to say... I know there are foundations out there who have money, but I s'pose You gotta have contacts with the right people to get them to do anything. Right?
I agree with all the comments, but didn't "like" all of them like I usually do. Because they're mostly just more-a the same. Whinging.
Or, rather, I had a different take on the article. The author quotes the one guy, why he did it. (To the effect:) "Most Canadians aren't activists. They keep their heads down. I'm doing this for *all* Canadians, whether they agree with me or not."
Point?
This is how activism is ACTUALLY DONE. Me? I don't have the money or the talents to hire a lawyer. Besides which, i didn't suffer any damages.
Surely SOMEBODY out there suffered damages. And here's how You make the case. (just read yesterday):
"In April, free-market economists Phil Kerpen, Stephen Moore, and Casey B. Mulligan published a working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research entitled 'A Final Report Card on the States’ Response to COVID-19.'”
:
:
"In short, lockdowns hurt the economy, impeded education, and harmed the development of children. Empirical evidence shows these policies to have been unwise. The next time government officials seek to destroy life and livelihood in the name of safety, we should bear these findings in mind."
Agree, definitely easily to prove now that the policies have negative outcomes. Of course, anyone with common sense could have figured that out beforehand. Still, in the US, political leaders have the authority to enact even bad policies. Just today, CA enacted a state of emergency for monkeypox. Note, no 2 weeks to slow the spread. And the City of Los Angeles is extending the eviction moratorium to August 2023. Insane and essentially Eminent Domain. https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/la-landlords-call-end-eviction-moratorium
Lessons I learned: 1) Refuse to comply from second one. 2) Don't own property in a blue state. Thanks JT!
Thank you to these two men for standing up to tyranny. And thanks Rupa for your reporting. I've been enjoying watching your interviews.
Two things that I believe need to change in regards to government overreach in the US, in Canada, etc.:
1. Typically US courts don't decide the merits of a policy, but rather if an official or agency has the authority to make that policy. So political leaders can just say they are following the science, without having to support their arguments with actual science. But in murder cases or civil cases, there is typically a battle of the experts. Denying freedoms should be the absolute last type of public policy / law and if the science is unequivocal, then political leaders should be able to defend it in court.
2. And actually more important, when implementing policies to deny freedoms granted in the US Constitution or the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms, political leaders should have to defend their position in court BEFORE the restrictions are implemented. Citizens shouldn't have to sue to get their freedoms back. Freedoms shouldn't be denied without a just and defensible cause. Otherwise, our governments are stealing our freedoms and our most precious time, time that we can never get back. And I submit that they do not have that right.
These freedoms are God given, not under the auspices of the state
The recent case in the US (EPA and WVA) may have significantly weakened Chevron Deference and may result in agencies having to actually defend their decisions in court.
We can only hope.
Chevron may be one of the most idiotic legal doctrines concocted by SCOTUS.
Yes, I was really happy about the outcome of that case. Let's hope so.
Yes, as a result of the EPA /WVA case, we should expect see much more litigation challenging the Administrative State on the grounds of statutory over reach.
I'd like to see a Cloward-Piven strategy applied; go after them on everything from every agency. Swamp them (pun intended) with so much legal work that they can't do any regulatory work. Make their employees miserable. Hire PR firms to engage in propaganda.
I know...takes lots of money...If I would have won the recent mega-millions, I would have allocated at least half the funds for just that purpose...
That is a very good idea. I will keep that in mind if I win the lotto. No wins so far, but it sure hasn't been for a lack of trying.
It’s a good idea. No different than what the Democrats did with organizing, funding and executing their mail in ballot effort for the 2020 election. Except the Democrats pulled it off and the Republicans are still trying to figure out what happened.
When CT Gov. Lamont announced his ban on gatherings of more than five people, I filed suit in federal court to get it struck down. How much support or press did it get? You know the answer to that. It was only when he relented that late Spring to increase the indoor limit to 10 and 25 outdoor that I relented, knowing that I'd have to start anew, incurring more costs and time I did not have to spend. And the thanks I got from CT's beleaguered citizens? lol
I take your point, Bruce - but with all due respect - when did your governor do this? Were vaccines available? And to what extent?
If it was a year ago or less I heartily agree. People should mix freely when we understood Covid in depth.
But if it was early or mid or even late 2020 when no one, not you, not a doctor, not the CDC nor any authority worth its bloody name could guarantee some kind of outcome from Covid - what were responsible authorities supposed to do when thousands of obese and unhealthy Americans were dying by the day?
Remember that?
We all become armchair quarterbacks when we’re not responsible for anything..
Especially looking back now when we know 20/20 what should have been done, as opposed to appreciating the enormity of governors and others in power making decisions when information is scant and contradictory in real time.
As I’ve read elsewhere so many years ago - don’t let the ideology blind you to the reality.
Hope things are well with you and your family..
It was really rather simple, Lee. Lamont claimed his edict was based on CDC guidance. But you may recall that CDC guidance at the time was to limit gatherings of 10 or more at risk people. So Lamont's action, which claimed no basis other than CDC guidance, was inconsistent with that guidance. It was twice as stringent and made no differentiation for risk. Moreover, it made no exception for families that might have had more than 5 members. It carried significant monetary penalties. As such it was a textbook case of over-reach without a rational basis. I believe I would have won that case and, in any rational society would have won it. But as I was a pro se litigant, absorbing all the costs myself, when he changed the rule I chalked it up as a "win." We make a huge mistake when we acquiesce to arbitrary power. And just because we're scared of a virus doesn't change things. As one SCOTUS member observed, the is no pandemic exception to the Bill of Rights.
All well here. A nice languid August. Hope the same for you and yours.
Bruce
Well, I thank you. I have tried to explain to people that the reason they still have their freedoms is due to people like you that challenged the system, that didn't comply. I find that they mostly just regard me as irritating.
I'm sorry, but that's just plain pathetic, Sir Bruce. About what I would expect, but still...
You're probably lucky to be able to afford it. Most wouldn't. Well, most wouldn'a tried, even if they had the money, so there is that.. I dunno what else to say... I know there are foundations out there who have money, but I s'pose You gotta have contacts with the right people to get them to do anything. Right?
Yup.
I agree with all the comments, but didn't "like" all of them like I usually do. Because they're mostly just more-a the same. Whinging.
Or, rather, I had a different take on the article. The author quotes the one guy, why he did it. (To the effect:) "Most Canadians aren't activists. They keep their heads down. I'm doing this for *all* Canadians, whether they agree with me or not."
Point?
This is how activism is ACTUALLY DONE. Me? I don't have the money or the talents to hire a lawyer. Besides which, i didn't suffer any damages.
Surely SOMEBODY out there suffered damages. And here's how You make the case. (just read yesterday):
https://www.city-journal.org/the-damage-of-covid-lockdowns
"In April, free-market economists Phil Kerpen, Stephen Moore, and Casey B. Mulligan published a working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research entitled 'A Final Report Card on the States’ Response to COVID-19.'”
:
:
"In short, lockdowns hurt the economy, impeded education, and harmed the development of children. Empirical evidence shows these policies to have been unwise. The next time government officials seek to destroy life and livelihood in the name of safety, we should bear these findings in mind."
IMO. TY for You comment, M. CR!
Agree, definitely easily to prove now that the policies have negative outcomes. Of course, anyone with common sense could have figured that out beforehand. Still, in the US, political leaders have the authority to enact even bad policies. Just today, CA enacted a state of emergency for monkeypox. Note, no 2 weeks to slow the spread. And the City of Los Angeles is extending the eviction moratorium to August 2023. Insane and essentially Eminent Domain. https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/la-landlords-call-end-eviction-moratorium
Lessons I learned: 1) Refuse to comply from second one. 2) Don't own property in a blue state. Thanks JT!
TY!
I believe you meant “Eminent Domain”.
Yes thanks, typing on very little sleep right now.
I figured it was autocorrect or SpellCzetch as I like to call it…