screwdriverdelight

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 888 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: question for competent lawyers and anyone else who knows law #2062681
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant


    there are 80 mln international arrivals in US airports annually, this is a little higher than number of people crossing Mexican border (who also quarantine for weeks in the desert)

    Do you mean to imply that if the risks were 1/40 of what they are now, then covid testing should logically be dropped?

    in reply to: question for competent lawyers and anyone else who knows law #2062613
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    SCOTUS has ruled on several of the vaccine mandates. It has upheld the EOs dealing with health care workers and rejected the EO (implemented through OSHA) that created the mandate for all employers >100 employees. In both cases, the rulings were NOT based on constitutionality but the procedure through which the rules were adopted (short-circuiting the APA) or absence of underlying statutory authority for a rule of the scope contemplated (aka the blanket OSHA rule).

    A vaccine mandate for all companies with more than 100 employees was b”h ruled unconstitutional. Requiring federal employees to vaccinate was not struck down. The distinction is obvious: A federal employee is in essence a specific company called the government hiring, and gets to make the rules for its employees. This opinion was not unanimous, but at least has a valid legal argument behind it.

    in reply to: question for competent lawyers and anyone else who knows law #2062129
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    health and life and death emergencies, such as the spread of viral diseases can override constitutional rights.

    let’s start with the easiest:
    Read the Preamble to the Constitution and when you get to “promote the General Welfare” it is game, set and match.
    We have the federal system for the stated reasons in the preamble and societal health falls into the General welfare.


    So of course all Dems will shout that there’s a clear and present danger. And of course any amateur law student could deflate that argument in one breath.
    The best and clearest rebuttal is that the border is open for all the illegals coming in without masks and tests; apparently the danger is neither clear nor present. (Furthermore, it’s an act of discrimination for being a citizen, being as how only citizens are targeted.)

    So everyone’s busy with the work vaccine mandates–which is also unconstitutional, of course, and more important, too–but why is no one working on these laws?

    NOTE THE FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, WHETHER A REGULATION IS WISE IS NOT RELEVANT – WHAT IS WISE IS THE FOR POLITICIANS TO DECIDE.

    But the courts can shoot it down if it’s arbitrary, irrational, or discriminatory.

    in reply to: question for competent lawyers and anyone else who knows law #2062130
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    @CTL, Let’s say West Virginia doesn’t want a Delaware citizen to enter, but is unable to stop them due to the 14th amendment. May West Virginia enact a law that the license of any driver who aids a Delawarian enter West Virginia will be revoked?

    in reply to: question for competent lawyers and anyone else who knows law #2061538
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    @CTL, Let’s say West Virginia doesn’t want a Delaware citizen to enter, but is unable to stop them due to the 14th amendment. May West Virginia enact a law that the license of any driver who aids a Delawarian enter West Virginia will be revoked?

    If the answer is no, and I hope it is, then the carrot and stick moshol above, plus the mask laws this thread is about, should also be unconstitutional.

    Also, you didn’t answer why requiring Covid tests is constitutional. It’s required of passengers after they already land.


    @ujm
    no.

    in reply to: question for competent lawyers and anyone else who knows law #2061215
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes..

    This is none of the above. It’s commerce of the same state, operating between states.

    The Feds use that authority, inter alia, to regulate all forms of “commerce” including all forms of interstate and international transportation.

    Even if it does fall under said article, how can the feds have jurisdiction before the plane is even in America? The entire commerce–that’s transpiring in a different country–is under their regulation?

    in reply to: question for competent lawyers and anyone else who knows law #2061211
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    There is nothing to prevent you from sneaking over the border when no one is looking

    How about landing in an airport and slipping out with presenting evidence of a PCR test? If I somehow made it on to the plane.

    One can make an “arbitrary and capricious” argument against the Covid

    Yes, that’s part of the argument

    Note the from a legal perspective, whether a regulation is wise is not relevant – what is wise is the for politicians to decide.

    But the courts can shoot it down if it’s arbitrary, irrational, or discriminatory.

    in reply to: question for competent lawyers and anyone else who knows law #2061212
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Unfortunately, you are preaching to the unsaved, who believe what they want, whether it is correct or not.

    False, uncalled for, and actually already disproven.

    in reply to: question for competent lawyers and anyone else who knows law #2061058
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    UJM, 2 ways:
    1. the commerce is not restricted. it is reasonable to assume that no one will refrain from flying due to a pants requirement. Many do refrain because of the mask mandate.
    2. there is “a clear and present danger” to walking around unclothed. Not a physical danger, but a sociological danger. I don’t know if this danger is legally recognized or not, but it certainly is a difference.

    PCR tests still are unconstitutional.
    @CTL under what grounds does the federal government have a right to interfere with air commerce? Is it because they own the airspace?

    in reply to: question for competent lawyers and anyone else who knows law #2061053
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    this is kind of awkward. Participant used my computer this morning and left his account ,logged in and I posted with his account. So above post is mine.

    in reply to: question for competent lawyers and anyone else who knows law #2060800
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Who says that you need to fly? Just walk state to state or into the country and your rights are protected.

    If an airline wants to say all passengers must wear green hats can they not do that?

    I answered that already. The law can either be a prohibition to enter the country or a mandate to the airline.

    in reply to: att mod 29 #1953206
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Granted. So I’ll write a disclaimer & you’ll reinstate it?

    in reply to: att mod 29 #1953116
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Neat digression.

    Can you answer, @100?

    in reply to: Do illegal immigrants pose a health risk as they are unvaccinated. #1683611
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    It’s racist of you to imply that illegal immigrants can pose a risk even if they’re unvaccinated.

    in reply to: How Many Moderators Are There???? #1683610
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant
    in reply to: A tale of yesterday #1683606
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Ry23 you were drunk when you wrote that, right?

    in reply to: Subway Pocketbook Snatching Alert #1683605
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Been great!

    in reply to: Subway Pocketbook Snatching Alert #1682936
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    I didn’t actually think it was edited in any way, but good disclaimer, anyway.

    in reply to: your opinion please #1520030
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    seems like all side with the rosh. But, let me ask, is it fair of the seminary to foist such a task on my daughter? THey’re not paying her, they want her to do the dirty work of preparing a speech…what’s the justification of that?

    in reply to: thread for random things too small to be their own threads #1519641
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Mueller and Kerry look alike.

    in reply to: your opinion please #1519618
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Plus, I’m not sure I want her speaking about how good the seminary is, after all this.

    in reply to: your opinion please #1519617
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    thanks shoppoing613 and LF for your offer of a speech, but then when she says it everyone will know who I am, and I don’t want that.
    As far as writing some “five-minute, sappy thing,” I mean, is that what seminary is all about? Teaching girls to just say some hobblewash? I’m looking for something with substance. Something that will really change the other girls’ lives forever.

    in reply to: What was the first topic ever in ywn coffee room??? #1519289
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    answer: no. It seems only if I post a link…?

    in reply to: What was the first topic ever in ywn coffee room??? #1519288
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Did yet-to-be approved posts stop turning up in yellow?

    in reply to: What was the first topic ever in ywn coffee room??? #1519287
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant
    in reply to: Has anyone here ever fostered a kitten? #1518922
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant
    in reply to: Anyone have an opinion on buying marijuana stocks 🌱?!?! #1518836
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    FF, they give you computers in yeshiva?

    in reply to: Anyone have an opinion on buying marijuana stocks 🌱?!?! #1518513
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Safer than smuggling it illegally and selling it, but a smaller profit.

    in reply to: Complaining about poor people not being poor enough #1518511
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    you have an interesting twist on the word “paraphrase”.

    in reply to: It should be legal to eat dog and cat meat. #1518017
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Health, I didn’t miss the point. You missed a few vital English classes.

    in reply to: It should be legal to eat dog and cat meat. #1517581
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Health,
    Sorry; I don’t write the laws.

    But you did offeryour opinion on what it should be.

    Yidd23 -“It should be legal to eat dog and cat meat”

    Absolutely NOT! Unwanted animals that cannot be placed in shelters should be euthanized or kept alive, instead of eaten! We need these animals for science, especially medical science.

    in reply to: It should be legal to eat dog and cat meat. #1517155
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Health,
    <emThe avg. American won’t eat cats or dogs! Maybe they do in other countries.

    So basically it should be illegal to eat cats and dogs since the avg. American won’t eat them.

    My assumption why there are tough laws is because of the PC that was created by our liberals!

    Or maybe because of the though laws created by liberals.

    in reply to: It should be legal to eat dog and cat meat. #1516695
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Health,

    In other words, there is a purpose for humans!
    There are very few needs for humans for cats & dogs! How about for science?!?

    How about for food?

    Why are there tough laws for using cats & dogs, especially when they can be used for science?!?

    Beats me. But what does it have to do with PC?

    in reply to: It should be legal to eat dog and cat meat. #1516410
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Cows are used by humans for food (Milk & Meat)!

    Are you incapable of following the discussion? OP said eating cats & dogs should be legal. You say, “no we need them for science.” I say, “use cows for science and eats cats.” You say, “We can’t use cows, because we eat them.”


    “And what does it have to do with PC?”

    Why it’s very hard to get cats and dogs for Science.

    PC stands for Political Correctness. It has nothing to do with tough laws.

    in reply to: It should be legal to eat dog and cat meat. #1516411
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Why should scientists use cats and dogs over cows?”


    -They take up less space?
    -Because they’re smaller.
    -It’s cheaper

    Granted, these are legitimate reasons as to why scientists should prefer cats and dogs over cows. But they don’t justify forbidding cats and dogs for citizens, but legalizing them for scientists. The law could allow mere citizens the same conveniences and economic advantages as scientists.

    in reply to: It should be legal to eat dog and cat meat. #1515405
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    And what does it have to do with PC?

    in reply to: It should be legal to eat dog and cat meat. #1515404
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Why should scientists use cats and dogs over cows?

    in reply to: Lag B’omer #1515236
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    I don’t.

    in reply to: Lag B’omer #1514624
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Baruch Hashem I am privileged to be in Eretz Yisrael for R’ Shimon bar yochai’s Johrtziet, so I don’t know of any in Brooklyn. I will iy”h be here through Yom Yerushalayim, and will be saying Morid Hatal my entire stay, as per the custom here.

    in reply to: I have a BTL, now what can I do? #1514622
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Try Touro in New York. They have many programs and they’re frum-friendly.

    They do accept credits from yeshiva, and they’re schedule accommodates the Jewish calendar. However they (the Brooklyn branch, at least) hire teachers who spout blatant k’fira. They do not deny the charges. They just say that those professors charge less.

    in reply to: Neurotypicals who don’t like loud noises and bright lights #1514586
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    It seems though that shockingly those Kiddushins & Nisuins were nontheless chal and the couples were Halachicly married!

    Are you a poseik, or are you quoting someone who was machshir them?

    in reply to: Using Air Conditioners Is Assur #1513069
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    The mitzius changed since R’ Moshe’s days. The ancient ACs were huge inconvenient machines which made a lot of noise and dimmed the lights during use. They barely made the air colder. I don’t even know if R’ Moshe was familiar with how they worked, but certainly the mitzius changed since then.
    Anyway, since when do we go with every kulah we find? Are you machmir on R’ Moshe’s chumros too, or just his kulos? Do you set timers on ACs on shabbos? If so, you contradict yourself.
    The Brisker Rav and R’ Tzvi Pesach Frank both didn’t have ACs; they obviously held they were assur, and also a lot of other gedolim.

    in reply to: Project Improve #1512560
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Don’t bet on it happening, though.

    It happened.

    in reply to: Using Air Conditioners Is Assur #1512559
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    I just love when people use R’ Moshe to prove AC is permitted. Don’t you realize he was niftar over 30 years ago and the mitzius has changed manyfold since then?

    in reply to: BT vs FFB #1511815
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Mrs. Plony,

    I need to get this off my chest: People who do kiruv, formally or informally, have a responsibility to promote independence of BT’s. If you have your little coterie of people whom you’ve ‘made frum’, but you keep them under your exclusive influence then you’re doing them a real disservice. Let them see how other observant people manage a Shabbos table or Pesach Seder; let them try a different shul or a different community.

    If you claim that you’re ‘just like family’ for ‘your’ BT’s, then you should be committed to caring for them (and their descendants) in perpetuity – not just that you’ll get all the honor and glamour of walking them to the chuppah and being invited to siyums, etc., but be ready to support them (financially, not just emotionally) if their families reject them or if they have other emergencies.

    What do the 2 things have to do with each other?

    in reply to: desensitized to cursing #1189362
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    AviK, that refers to talking about inappropriate things, not using meaningless words which common society has decided are bad.

    in reply to: desensitized to cursing #1189359
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    ??????

    in reply to: desensitized to cursing #1189354
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    What’s wrong with using curse words?

    in reply to: Using pejoratives #1188384
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Since the OP seems to have raised the question only regarding ethnic and religious groups, I take the liberty of using pejoratives for many of the posters on this thread: You guys are idiots.

    “Shvartze” is no more insulting than “black”; “Goy” than “Jew.” Granted, people could use certain tones of voice and contexts to turn a neutral word into an insult (including such words such as “tall” “black” and “doctors”), but no blame lies on people who use them.

    Here are some real-life quotes from the above idiots.

    Would she have preferred “goy”? I think I remember hearing that Arafat found that term offensive.

    Oh, Arafat is am etiquette master now? I assume he also found the term “Jew” offensive.

    . I don’t like them at all, even Goy, preferring non-Jew. One should also strive for lashon nekiah.

    Just because one person may have been offended by a the term non-Jew doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with the term. Is there any sane person who thinks being called a non-Jew is offensive, in a world of rising anti-Semitism?

    “Goy” was made into an insult by Jews who hate religious Jews (Sorry, I don’t use the senseless term “Self-hating Jew”). The word has been in use for centuries and won’t fall into disuse because “one person [or persons] may have been offended [or pretend to be offended] by a the term”.

    in reply to: Can Trump admit that he's a loser? #1188829
    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Everyone’s making such a big deal out of this and it’s ridiculous. A) Everyone knows voter fraud exists. B) As iscrimna pointed out, there’s no law mandating him to concede to the winner. C) It was some more exaggerated bluff, basically saying Hillary’s horrible and there’s no way he’ll let her become president.

    Leave him alone.

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 888 total)