0
0

[–] RToey ago 

The solution is to vote out Che Insley in November.

0
1

[–] Lawyer42 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

The article is lying to you. They lost the case and they’re just trying to spin it. Here is the actual decision. https://www.scribd.com/document/470394078/Dkt-043-20200724-Denial-1879#from_embed

0
1

[–] corrbrick [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Thanks. I realized when I read the decision that it didn't match the article's headline.

0
2

[–] Psalm67 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Exactly. When I read the ruling on Scribd I saw it was exact he opposite. Of course governors can’t “enforce” in the sense of arresting people etc. the decision was FAVORABLE to the governor. It had nothing to say about restricting the government or police from enforcing these edicts. Unfortunately.

0
2

[–] PatrickSTomlinson 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It's not a victory at all.

In short, the court ruled that it will not force Inslee to do shit.

0
0

[–] corrbrick [S] ago 

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that you are right.

0
0

[–] PatrickSTomlinson ago 

Then you should probably delete the post. Whoever wrote the article doesn't know how to read legal documents. It's fake news and gives people the completely wrong impression that all's well in Washington when the opposite is true.

0
1

[–] Christosgnosis 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It's not as decisive after all - the Plaintiffs in this case stopped crowing about it after the Supreme Court ruling came out that backed up the dictatorial power that the governors are exerting. They thought at first their case and the ruling on it could give them some leverage, but now they believe the Supreme Court ruling has completely shut that possibility down

0
0

[–] corrbrick [S] ago 

Right. I couldn't find anything about this at their web site.

0
2

[–] Matthew1103 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

LOL. No fucking win here.

0
3

[–] obvoiusly 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

No more face Diapers! Ops, after actually readinghttps://www.scribd.com/document/470394078/Dkt-043-20200724-Denial-1879#from_embed it seems that Inslee, as governor, does not directly enforce his proclamations. So the case was dismissed. So some one actually needs to be charged, and the charging officer(DA?) needs to sued. Oh well, Lawyers, what ya gona do!

0
0

[–] corrbrick [S] ago 

Right, he's not enforcing it, except by commanding his goons to enforce it. Twisted common sense of the (((legal))) world.

0
17

[–] Cleanhouseindc 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago 

As a Washingtonian, anything that diminishes Despot inslee is a good thing. What it seems to mean to me is that the ruling says his proclamations have no legal standing, businesses can ignore his edicts, and any enforcement actions are illegitimate. The real questions are whether businesses will back off of enforcing his proclamations, and whether there will be any publicity of the courts decision, or if they will keep it buried so no one hears about it.

0
1

[–] Christosgnosis 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

The Plaintiffs in this case thing the Supreme Court ruling that came later - backing the state edicts issued by state govts has undercut them and they are no longer touting this case as any kind of victory or advantage

The highest court in the land has give Carte Blanche to the states to make and enforce any edicts they want in the name of fighting the Wuhan virus

Evidently the court didn't see that the edicts need to be based in actual science or anything of the sort

0
1

[–] Christosgnosis 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Walmart and Home Depot have backed away from mandatory mask - evidently they have been getting communications from their customers to expect law suits because some people really do have actual disabilities that make it infeasible or dangerous to their health to wear a mask

This is the angle to use - get such people to coordinate a class action law suit against any business that attempts to push a mandatory mask policy

0
2

[–] Lawyer42 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

No, the court agreed with Inslee in that he makes the proclamations but does not directly enforce them. Other departments do that and the lawsuits regarding implementation needs to go against them. The court upheld the proclamations and denied the request to end them.

0
2

[–] Basballdude 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Here's the law that gives Weisman his authority to issue the order.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=43.70.130

I fear that this is just a feel good story and we're still subject to the mask edict.

0
4

[–] fnbs010 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Excellent...now we need to get Oregon on that same path

load more comments ▼ (4 remaining)