America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 2 years ago by tonygraz. 74 replies replies.
2 Pages<12
Desantis loses in court yet again...
rfenst Offline
#51 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,323
delta1 wrote:
vaccine mandates have a long history of being approved in the US


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vaccine-mandates-are-lawful-effective-and-based-on-rock-solid-science/



Delta,

See http://www.cigarbid.com/...rkers-to-Combat-Covid19

@#31 for a brief synopsis of the two SCOTUS cases about vaccination...
rfenst Offline
#52 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,323
Florida poll shows voters disagree with DeSantis on COVID-19 policies

South Florida Sun Sentinel

A public opinion poll released Thursday shows more evidence that a majority of Floridians oppose one of Gov. Ron DeSantis’ signature COVID-19 policies: his attempt to block school districts from mandating masks.

The poll showed that already-strong support for requiring masks in schools is increasing.

An overwhelming majority of likely Florida voters surveyed during the last five days in August by Data For Progress — 73% — said school districts should be allowed to require masks. Just 25% disagreed.

That’s higher support than the 60% support and 36% opposition revealed in a Quinnipiac University Poll that asked almost the same question 10 days earlier.

DeSantis hasn’t budged from his opposition, even as school boards responsible for educating half the state’s children flouted his ban and imposed mask mandates. He says parents are the ones to decide what’s right for their children.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends wearing masks in schools to help prevent the spread of COVID-19, but DeSantis issued an executive order July 30 to stop school districts from imposing mask mandates.

DeSantis approval
With the coronavirus pandemic the overriding issue of the day, Floridians are divided over DeSantis’ performance: 45% approved, 52% disapproved.

The numbers reflect an enormous political divide.

Among Democrats, 83% disapproved of DeSantis’ performance while 75% of Republicans approved. There is also great intensity in peoples’ views, with 72% of Democrats strongly disapproving and 54% of Republicans strongly approving of the governor’s performance.

Among independents, the numbers weren’t nearly so lopsided: 38% approving and 56% disapproving.

The results are in line with the Quinnipiac Poll. It found 51% of Florida voters disapproved and 46% approved of DeSantis’ handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Delta concern
The Data For Progress poll, taken before the daily numbers of new coronavirus cases began to fall, found that almost all Florida voters — 92% — were concerned about the delta variant.

Though concern cut across political parties, the level of concern varied greatly:

Very concerned: All voters, 60%; Democrats, 77%, Independents, 58%; Republicans, 44%.

A little concerned: All voters, 32%; Democrats, 19%; Independents, 32%; Republicans, 43%.

A Florida Atlantic University Poll conducted from Aug. 12 to 16 found similar levels of concern with a virtually identical question. FAU reported that 81% of Floridians were concerned about the delta variant.

That included 64% who were “very concerned” and 17% who were a “little concerned.”
Mask mandates
Most people in the latest poll favored indoor mask mandates in at least some situations.

50% supported a government-required indoor mask mandate in all public places. Just 32% of Republicans supported a government mask mandate. Democrats’ support was more than double at 70%.

14% said the government should require masks only in places where there is a COVID-19 outbreak.

26% said masks should be encouraged but not required by the government.

10% said indoor mask usage “should not be encouraged by the government.”

Political implications
The poll found overwhelming support among Republicans, but some pockets of disagreement on specific COVID policies, including the 32% who support a government mandate for indoor mask wearing in all public places, a concept DeSantis fiercely opposes, and the 51% who said school districts should be allowed to require masks.

Politically, the most important thing to DeSantis — who is running for re-election in 2022 and widely expected to seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2024 — is nurturing his political base in the party.

The key to winning elections in the current environment is generating excitement among a candidate’s base voters and encouraging them to turn out to vote.

The survey was commissioned by left-leaning Committee to Protect Health Care. The poll was conducted by Data for Progress, which is also left-leaning. Despite its partisan lean, pollster ratings from FiveThirtyEight.com give Data for Progress a B rating based on the historical accuracy and methodology of its polls.

Data for Progress used a web panel to survey 753 likely Florida voters from Aug. 27 to 31.
rfenst Offline
#53 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,323
State’s ‘sanctuary city’ law blocked by federal judge

News Service of Florida
TALLAHASSEE — More than two years after it was enacted, a federal judge who cited political motives behind it has blocked key parts of an immigration law that banned so-called sanctuary cities in Florida.

U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom wrote that the “totality of the relevant facts present significant evidence, both direct and circumstantial, of the Legislature’s discriminatory motives in enacting SB 168 [the law].”


Bloom, who is based in South Florida, delved extensively into the Republican-dominated Legislature’s development of the law and pointed to what she described as an “immigrant threat narrative” that helped lead to it.

She also cited behind-the-scenes involvement of the group Floridians for Immigration Enforcement in pushing for the law, including contacts with the office of Senate sponsor Joe Gruters, R-Sarasota.

“Based on the evidence presented, the court finds that plaintiffs have proven by a preponderance of the evidence that SB 168 has discriminatory or disparate effects on racial and ethnic minorities, and these discriminatory effects were both foreseeable and known to the Legislature at the time of SB 168’s enactment,” she wrote.

Bloom said two major parts of the law violated constitutional equal-protection rights and issued a permanent injunction against them.

One banned state and local agencies from having “sanctuary” policies that would prevent law-enforcement officials from cooperating with federal immigration-enforcement efforts.

The other required law-enforcement agencies to use “best efforts” to support federal immigration laws.


Lawmakers passed the measure in May 2019 along nearly straight party lines, before Gov. Ron DeSantis signed it. Several groups, such as the Florida Immigrant Coalition and the Farmworker Association of Florida, filed the lawsuit in July 2019 raising a series of constitutional issues.

The legislative debate over the measure was highly emotional and came as then-President Donald Trump made a priority of cracking down on undocumented immigrants. Also, DeSantis had promised during his 2018 gubernatorial campaign to ban sanctuary cities.

Bloom included references in her ruling to a well-known DeSantis campaign ad in 2018 about immigration and comments he made during his 2019 inauguration address.

“(While) running for his current position, Governor DeSantis also perpetuated the immigrant threat narrative through his campaign advertisements, which depicted him building a wall with his son, and his public statements associating ‘illegal immigrants’ with ‘lawlessness’ and voicing his support for eliminating sanctuary jurisdictions,” the judge wrote.

Bloom dismissed parts of the case in 2019 but allowed the rest of it to move forward. She held a six-day trial in January before taking eight months to issue Tuesday’s ruling.

Backers touted the law as helping improve safety in communities.

“This is about the rule of law,” DeSantis said as he signed the bill. “It’s also about public safety.”

But Democrats and other opponents argued, in part, that the bill was focused on Republicans feeding their conservative political base, rather than fixing an actual problem.

“This is a proactive bill that panders to fear,” Sen. Darryl Rouson, D-St. Petersburg, said at the time the bill passed. “It panders to the specter of what is not.”
DrMaddVibe Offline
#54 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,431
rfenst wrote:
“This is a proactive bill that panders to fear,” Sen. Darryl Rouson, D-St. Petersburg, said at the time the bill passed. “It panders to the specter of what is not.”



Been in St.Pete after dark lately?

It's a $hithole now.

The local government pandered to cut police funding and have mental health workers on the streets with the homeless that are thicker than roaches at night.

ANYTHING that reverses the DNC plan is good for Humanity.

There is no doubt this was done preemptively so they can start dumping Haitians that entered illegally, but the DNC doesn't GAF about laws or upholding them.

The DNC is a terrorist organization
rfenst Offline
#55 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,323
DeSantis’ brazen assault on our property rights

Orlando Sentinel Opinion Page

Talk of rights and freedoms has long been a prominent feature of American political discourse. That has been especially true during the COVID-19 era. In Florida, the freedom of anti-vaccine dissenters has been vigilantly protected, so much so that an attempt to require a store customer to show proof of vaccination exposes that store’s owner to a fine of $5,000.

Within the pantheon of freedoms is the right to hold private property. It was of central concern to the Founding Fathers.

The U.S. Constitution contains a robust protection against state confiscation. The importance of proprietary freedom remains a critical element of libertarian thought. The right to private property is treated as sacrosanct.

Except, it seems, to Gov. Ron DeSantis.

In essence, the holder of private property has a right to control the use of a given asset. That right would be meaningless if the state actually held control, or if private citizens could cavalierly ignore an owner’s monopoly on the rights of use and enjoyment.


One useful way to think of it is say that an owner of real estate, as an example, has the right to exclude (or include) anyone from entering the premises. An owner may choose to post a “No trespassing” sign. If so, no one is permitted entry (except someone with lawful authority). If you own a fancy nightclub, say Studio 54, you can choose to admit only the cool kids. In general, the owner decides who makes it past the velvet rope and who does not. The power to exclude is broad.

In Florida, however, this core property right has been eroded just when it is needed most. A property owner might wish to make certain that anyone entering his or her place of business has taken steps to minimize the spread of COVID-19 on his or her property. However, if you attempt to do so in Florida, you will be liable to a fine of $5,000. That’s an expensive freedom: it is clearly not free.

Exercising the right of private property, based on a well-founded belief that this will minimize health risks on your property, should be protected by law. If one can deny entry onto premises because one is not wearing a shirt (one can), you should be able to ask for a vaccination card (or mask for that matter).
The governor must agree that it is a well-founded belief because he has repeatedly urged Floridians to get vaccinated.

Notice that the Florida measure does not somehow manufacture more rights out of thin air. It merely shifts them around. The vaccine dissenter’s right not to be asked to supply a vax card comes at the expense of the property owner, whose right to exclude is thereby diminished. There is no notional increase in rights. Rather it is a zero-sum game.

The big puzzle is why the rights of these dissenters are being preferred over the rights of private-property owners. It makes no sense.
I think the framers of the Constitution would be appalled. Modern-day libertarians should be outraged. So should anyone who believes in private property, including, I assume, Gov. DeSantis.
What’s next?


Bruce Ziff is a professor emeritus in the Faculty of Law at the University of Alberta. He lives in Edmonton.
rfenst Offline
#56 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,323
He will lose in court on this issue too.
HockeyDad Offline
#57 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,134

The big puzzle is why the rights of these dissenters are being preferred over the rights of private-property owners. It makes no sense.

Can the private property owner deny entry if someone is black or Hispanic?
Dg west deptford Offline
#58 Posted:
Joined: 05-25-2019
Posts: 2,836
Babylon controls Florida too?

Say it's fake news
rfenst Offline
#59 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,323
HockeyDad wrote:
The big puzzle is why the rights of these dissenters are being preferred over the rights of private-property owners. It makes no sense.

Can the private property owner deny entry if someone is black or Hispanic?

No. Race, religion, gender, color, or national origin are "protected classes."
delta1 Offline
#60 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,788
they ought to let DeSantis alone...he's doing a helluva job killing off his voters
HockeyDad Offline
#61 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,134
rfenst wrote:
No. Race, religion, gender, color, or national origin are "protected classes."


So in some cases private property owners get their rights and in others they don’t. In my county you can’t go into a restaurant without showing proof of full vaccination and the business must enforce this and a mask mandate.

Private property rights? Nope.
rfenst Offline
#62 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,323
HockeyDad wrote:
So in some cases private property owners get their rights and in others they don’t. In my county you can’t go into a restaurant without showing proof of full vaccination and the business must enforce this and a mask mandate.

Private property rights? Nope.

Nope.
bgz Offline
#63 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Out here... hardly anyone wears a mask (including me... I'm one of the maskless... and have been for quite some time).

I bought a box of those black disposable masks... still have well over half the box.

The only place I really go that requires one is the chiropractor.
rfenst Offline
#64 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,323
bgz wrote:
Out here... hardly anyone wears a mask (including me... I'm one of the maskless... and have been for quite some time).

I bought a box of those black disposable masks... still have well over half the box.

The only place I really go that requires one is the chiropractor.

Around here, 50-75% of people wear masks. Majority of businesses require employees to wear masks. I do when inside other places. Would not eat at a restaurant where server is not masked.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#65 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,431
rfenst wrote:
Around here, 50-75% of people wear masks. Majority of businesses require employees to wear masks. I do when inside other places. Would not eat at a restaurant where server is not masked.



Around here? In Central Florida? Your numbers are laughable. Really. I can tell you haven't been in a shpo lately!

There is no law governing wearing masks only "guidelines". Mandates are not laws.

It's at the point now that when someone is wearing a mask outside people stare at them. Don't deny it. Even I openly laugh when I see someone driving a car...by themselves...wearing a mask. You're entitled to wear a mask, please do. It let's the rest of us understand your fragility. Some day you're going to have to drop the mask. Humanity will be dealing with Covid forever. There is no vaccine to eradicate it. It's NEVER going to go to zero. The variants already show that.
rfenst Offline
#66 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,323
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Around here? In Central Florida? Your numbers are laughable. Really. I can tell you haven't been in a shpo lately!

There is no law governing wearing masks only "guidelines". Mandates are not laws.

It's at the point now that when someone is wearing a mask outside people stare at them. Don't deny it. Even I openly laugh when I see someone driving a car...by themselves...wearing a mask. You're entitled to wear a mask, please do. It let's the rest of us understand your fragility. Some day you're going to have to drop the mask. Humanity will be dealing with Covid forever. There is no vaccine to eradicate it. It's NEVER going to go to zero. The variants already show that.

"Around here" means Altamonte Springs, Longwood and Apopka.
I do not wear a mask outside. And, I too laugh at people with masks on inside their cars by themselves.
Fragility? Really, bro? You know my personal situation and co-morbidities... What the F is wrong with you?
bgz Offline
#67 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Even I openly laugh when I see someone driving a car...by themselves...wearing a mask. You're entitled to wear a mask, please do.


Most of those are delivery people and ride sharers and such.
HockeyDad Offline
#68 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,134
We codified our mask mandates in the SF Bay Area. Since July 2020 no mask indoors is $100 fine and $1000 to the business for first offenses. It was lifted from June 15 to August 2 2021. There is no criteria for when it will be lifted again.

Starting September 22, vaccine proof is also required.

In the land that brought you the summer of love and Haight & Ashbury hippies we are now 100% about compliance.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#69 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,431
rfenst wrote:
"Around here" means Altamonte Springs, Longwood and Apopka.
I do not wear a mask outside. And, I too laugh at people with masks on inside their cars by themselves.
Fragility? Really, bro? You know my personal situation and co-morbidities... What the F is wrong with you?


I was in 2 of those cities last night. Home Depot...maybe 3 people outside of employees that are forced to wear masks for employment reasons. Ate at a pizzeria, NOBODY wearing a mask.

You seem like a normal mentally functioning adult to me, what did I miss?
HockeyDad Offline
#70 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,134
About 50% wear masks outdoors although not required. People who wear two masks are brave and courageous people who are only thinking about the safety of others. You can laugh at someone with a mask on while alone in a car but then you have to make a $10 donation to stop AAPI hate.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#71 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,431
HockeyDad wrote:
We codified our mask mandates in the SF Bay Area. Since July 2020 no mask indoors is $100 fine and $1000 to the business for first offenses. It was lifted from June 15 to August 2 2021. There is no criteria for when it will be lifted again.

Starting September 22, vaccine proof is also required.

In the land that brought you the summer of love and Haight & Ashbury hippies we are now 100% about compliance.



And yet you're still there?

https://sf.gov/resource/2021/covid-19-data-and-reports

Doesn't seem to be having the desired effect.
HockeyDad Offline
#72 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,134
Our two weeks to flatten the curve is currently two years to eradicate. My county is 82% vaccinated and the hospitals are operating normally.
HockeyDad Offline
#73 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,134
At a Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors meeting at the end of August, Supervisor Susan Ellenberg repeatedly pressed Health Officer Dr. Sara Cody on when the county's indoor mask mandate would be lifted.


The number of new COVID-19 cases in Santa Clara County had started to slow at the time of the meeting, and when Ellenberg asked Cody how long the mandate would last, Cody seemed to suggest some degree of perpetuity. What followed was an exchange that grew increasingly tense with each reply.

"Masking is something that not only has been very effective in damping down COVID transmission, but we also virtually had no influenza last winter when we had widespread masking," Cody said when discussing the mandate. "So there were other important benefits from universal masking."

"I appreciate that comment about the flu, of course last year not only were we masked, but kids weren't at school and a lot of folks weren't at work, so we really had some additional protection there," Ellenberg replied. "... What do you recommend that we tell people who are asking, 'At what point do the masks come off?' If we're going to be living with this, as you say, for quite a while, are masks indefinitely in our future?"

"Well I would say we don't have a set metric," Cody said. "I would say we need to see our hospitals settle down, our cases low and flat, and some stability before we would recommend taking away this very important prevention measure. And the other thing I would say is that even without a requirement, people will continue to mask indoors, it's part of many cultures and may well become part of our culture or at least in some segments as well."
tonygraz Offline
#74 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,253
DrMaddVibe wrote:
...

You seem like a normal mentally functioning adult to me, what did I miss?


Keep trying to find out.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12