Recruiting Forum Football Talk II

Status
Not open for further replies.
#120,877
#120,877
Five linebackers who could be breakout stars in 2020

Henry T.


The skinny: Most assumed that To’oto’o was a lock for Alabama leading up to National Signing Day, but he pulled off a shocker by committing to Tennessee. Washington was considered the biggest threat to the Tide during the final weeks.
While some true freshmen take a little time to get adjusted to the speed of the college game, To’oto’o became a major contributor for the Vols defensive unit from the first game. Finishing with 72 tackles, five tackles for a loss and one fumble recovery in 2019, To’oto’o should continue his ascent as one of the top defensive players in the SEC this fall.
Farrell’s take: To’oto’o had a great freshman season and expectations are sky high for this year. We liked him a lot out of high school because he rarely took a false step or missed a tackle and he should emerge as one of the best linebackers in the SEC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SweetAsSodaPop, 901LookAlive, Rocky_Top_Vol13 and 13 others
#120,880
#120,880
delfonic said:
This Tampa minister shouldn't have been arrested. They should have waited until they traced covid19 deaths back to that gathering and hit him with a count of negligent manslaughter for each case. No need to create new laws for enforcement when something adequate is already on the books.
Click to expand...
What's stopping law enforcement from doing that with the flu?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bullet20, Brillovol and Vols4us
#120,881
#120,881
Weezer said:
The question is whether the law was Constitutional or not. People keep talking about risk. Were people forced to attend, or did they choose to attend? I assume the discussion then becomes, "what about the people they may come into contact with?". Again, it comes down to choices made by individuals. I'm not arguing that what the government has said is the best course of action. It is. The question becomes are they Constitutionally allowed to mandate it? That's where I personally think they go out of bounds. I have zero problem with the government suggesting the best course of action. Making it mandatory is a slap in the face of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Tifwiw, a couple of legal minds weighing in
It is well-established in constitutional law that no rights guaranteed by the Constitution are absolute. Your right to assemble may be limited by the government, as long as the law so restricting you passes "strict scrutiny". For that test to be passed, the government has to show that it is necessary to a "compelling state interest", it is "narrowly tailored" to achieving this interest, and uses the "least restrictive means" to do so. The courts will simply accept the premise that the government has a compelling interest in preventing the spread of a serious disease. Narrow tailoring and least-restrictive are not quite so clear. You could maybe take the position that the prohibition should have an exception for people who are "certifiably not exposed" (a narrower restriction), but that is medical fantasy.

Perhaps someone can devise a medically-sound narrower restriction, and that would come out in the lawsuit. Alternatively (this is where the lawyers and not the doctors would get involved), it is possible that the assembly-ban is completely ineffective and therefore it does not accomplish the intended end. But it is reasonable to think that an assembly-ban will have some positive effect w.r.t. the spread of the disease. So I doubt that the courts will find that the present Washington state assembly-ban fails strict scrutiny (I don't know about other bans).
Click to expand...

There are three levels of scrutiny for such actions, and the appropriate level depends on the nature of the gathering being prevented.

Rational Basis is the lowest level. To pass the rational basis test, the action must have a legitimate state interest, and there must be a rational connection between the action's means and goals.

Intermediate Scrutiny requires that the means are substantially related to that interest. This is a subtly stronger requirement than simply being "connected".

Strict Scrutiny requires that the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. This is a considerable stronger requirement, as it implies that no less invasive action is adequate for the purpose.

Most cases involving fundamental rights - and freedom of assembly for religious or political purposes is such a right - require Strict Scrutiny. Thus any challenge would likely revolve around whether or not the state could accomplish its aims via less stringent regulations. That's a tricky question. In the past, courts have been unwilling to tread too deeply into such questions - acquiescing, for example, to the infamous internments of Japanese during WWII. It seems unlikely that a temporary ban on assembly would fail to pass this test.

Of course, if the regulations go on too long or the size of assemblies is reduced to an absurd level, it will become easy for judges to rule that the ban is too stringent. It is anyone's guess just where those lines might be drawn.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: CreiveHallVol and jakez4ut
#120,885
#120,885
Devo182 said:
Tifwiw, a couple of legal minds weighing in
Click to expand...
Even your own quote admits it an issue

"Of course, if the regulations go on too long or the size of assemblies is reduced to an absurd level, it will become easy for judges to rule that the ban is too stringent. It is anyone's guess just where those lines might be drawn"

This will be an L for any mayor or governor that is challenged.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bullet20 and franklinpence
#120,887
#120,887
Devo182 said:
Tifwiw, a couple of legal minds weighing in
Click to expand...
I'd say there's a good chance it will be left for the courts to decide, and I expect the courts to side with the government. Do the courts always get it right? It's a matter of opinion. A lot depends on interpretation of the Constitution. JMO, and I could be completely wrong, but I think our FFs would chafe under the restrictive nature of our federal government. I don't think it was meant to grow into what it has become.
 
#120,889
#120,889
delfonic said:
Well, for one, they've not issued any guidance on the flu. Two, he claimed those attending his services were somehow protected from covid-19 by the measures his church had taken.
Click to expand...
And if they do? And if they start arresting people for assembling during all flu seasons? You've already given that right up, it's been determined case law and your fked. The bill of rights is even more important during times of crisis when governments are historically known for overstepping.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ridgerunner Vol
#120,890
#120,890
delfonic said:
Well, for one, they've not issued any guidance on the flu. Two, he claimed those attending his services were somehow protected from covid-19 by the measures his church had taken.
Click to expand...
Not aware of that, but depending on his wording, that could come into play.
 
#120,891
#120,891
utvols88 said:
Even your own quote admits it an issue

"Of course, if the regulations go on too long or the size of assemblies is reduced to an absurd level, it will become easy for judges to rule that the ban is too stringent. It is anyone's guess just where those lines might be drawn"

This will be an L for any major or governor that is challenged.
Click to expand...
Oh I didn't know exactly what the answer was or even under what it could be considered const or unconst. Don't see any legal experts here (where volgee?), so I was curious myself and posted what I found, which I thought was pretty fair and open to some interpretation.

But most of what that poster said was leaning to it not being ruled unconst. The last paragraph was a nice hedge, ie if it goes on too long, then it may not pass strict scrutiny. Not that they believed it was at that point yet.

Obviously it is fluid and based on tests. So, not outright unconstitutional by any means. Anyone can ask for it to go to the SCOTUS (not sure who would bring it up rn), but at the speed they move, it wouldn't matter rn anyway I suppose.
 
Last edited:
#120,892
#120,892
utvols88 said:
And if they do? And if they start arresting people for assembling during all flu seasons? You've already given that right up, it's been determined case law and your fked. The bill of rights is even more important during times of crisis when governments are historically known for overstepping.
Click to expand...

If he misrepresented the safety(and I think it depends on what exactly he said), I think it could be fraud. But I'm not a lawyer, so I couldn't swear to it.
 
#120,894
#120,894
butchna said:
Yes. When smallpox outbreaks occurred, keeping idiots in one place wasn’t an issue. Modern technology allows for rapid transmission as well as solutions. My church is doing services via social media...God wins.
Click to expand...
Smart thing to do. But not everyone has such access. It still comes down to people making choices and whether or not the government should be making those choices for them. Definitely arguments to be made for both sides.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ridgerunner Vol
#120,895
#120,895
Weezer said:
Smart thing to do. But not everyone has such access. It still comes down to people making choices and whether or not the government should be making those choices for them. Definitely arguments to be made for both sides.
Click to expand...
Pursue your rights all the way to the morgue...I’ll argue in self isolation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLSONLY, jakez4ut and titansvolsfaninga
#120,897
#120,897
Weezer said:
If he misrepresented the safety(and I think it depends on what exactly he said), I think it could be fraud. But I'm not a lawyer, so I couldn't swear to it.
Click to expand...
Even if he did. The mandated order shouldn't exist.

A recommendation, sure. Should we sit at home? If you want. But again, I refer anyone back to the Patriot Act. Almost 19 years later, here we are.
 
#120,898
#120,898
utvols88 said:
Even if he did. The mandated order shouldn't exist.

A recommendation, sure. Should we sit at home? If you want. But again, I refer anyone back to the Patriot Act. Almost 19 years later, here we are.
Click to expand...
And I tend to agree. It should be a recommendation, and it would be smart to follow said recommendation. I think mandating it is overstepping.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, JacketVol and RikidyBones
#120,899
#120,899
Devo182 said:
Oh I didn't know exactly what the answer was or even under what it could be considered const or unconst. Don't see any legal experts here (where volgee?), so I was curious myself and posted what I found, which I thought was pretty fair and open to some interpretation.

But most of what that poster said was leaning to it not being ruled unconst. The last paragraph was a nice hedge, ie if it goes on too long, then it may not pass strict scrutiny. Not that they believed it was at that point yet.

Obviously it is fluid and based on tests. So, not outright unconstitutional by any means. Anyone can ask for it to go to the SCOTUS (not sure who would bring it up rn), but at the speed they move, it wouldn't matter rn anyway I suppose.
Click to expand...
Good point on the speed of scotus.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store



Back
Top