You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
People attempting to forum slide and disrupt this board in contravention of Q's call for unity through patriotism may be banned
What is Q related? Anything involving Trump. Politics, Fake news, Censorship, Pizzagate, lluminati, New World Order, Secret Societies, Mk-Ultra, False Flags, Q proofs, etc...
Also, corruption in the following areas...
Government, Entertainment industry, celebrities, charities, corporations, etc...
No Pornographic Material Allowed
Continually harassing users can get your post/comment removed and you possibly banned. Threats of violence against other users or their family members are not allowed on v/GreatAwakening
Those belong in the comment section. If you need help, you can ping a mod, or PM us.
Posts need to be Q related. Not for attacking other users.
GAM is the new place for all things drama/mods/other users pertaining to v/GreatAwakening.
No usernames imitating mods
Misc reasons
Voat Rules
Content violates spam guidelines
Content contains or links to content that is illegal
Content contains personal information that relates to a Voat users real world or online identity
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.
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.
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
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
[–]corrbrick[S]2 points
8 points
10 points
(+10|-2)
ago
This does seem like a huge win. What do Anons from Washington say? A judge in Illinois also shot down Pritzker, but I haven't heard about any of the fallout from this judgment either.
It doesn't seem like a real win. The restrictions will continue. It's never been about whether or not it's legal. It's about how much power a lie repeated on the TV has.
[–]corrbrick[S]0 points
4 points
4 points
(+4|-0)
ago
On reading the ruling it's not such a big win after all. The legitimacy of the proclamations were not questioned, only if Inslee has the authority to enforce them, which he admits he doesn't. The next move I suppose, would be to challenge any occurrences of executive branch enforcement of the unenforceable proclamations. Probably too nuanced to make a difference to any citizens of Washington.
It's my understanding that a lot of the enforcement was up to the County Sheriffs. They are elected, correct? They basically don't take orders from anyone.
[–]Basballdude0 points
2 points
2 points
(+2|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
That's correct, but the Dept of labor and industries and our local health districts are using their dictatorial powers to cripple businesses into complying or being shut down. A huge water park in Eastern WA was shut down by labor and industries with a 10k fine. 156 employees had to be laid off.Yeah it's about the virus...not.
[–]corrbrick[S]0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
Sheriffs are elected, which unfortunately makes them political animals. Several in Michigan have declined to enforce these mandates, but too many have been very quiet.
I have seen these unconstitutional mandates being enforced city and state police, whose chiefs answer to governor and mayors. Too bad the fact that the governor can't enforced his proclamations hasn't seemed to have filter down to the goons that are enforcing his proclamations. Go figure.
[–]Basballdude0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
He wouldn't make that admission unless her knew he had plausible deniability and that's why he had the Dept of Health issue the order and not the office of the governor.
[+]obvoiusly0 points3 points3 points
ago
(edited ago)
[–]obvoiusly0 points
3 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!
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.
Sort: Top
[–] Cleanhouseindc 0 points 17 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.
[–] Lawyer42 0 points 2 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.
[–] Basballdude 0 points 2 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.
[–] Christosgnosis 0 points 1 point 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
[–] Christosgnosis 0 points 1 point 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
[–] corrbrick [S] 2 points 8 points 10 points (+10|-2) ago
This does seem like a huge win. What do Anons from Washington say? A judge in Illinois also shot down Pritzker, but I haven't heard about any of the fallout from this judgment either.
[–] InquisitorNyxos 0 points 13 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago
It doesn't seem like a real win. The restrictions will continue. It's never been about whether or not it's legal. It's about how much power a lie repeated on the TV has.
[–] Basballdude 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
That and the order was from the Secretary of Health, John Weisman, not Jao(not misspelled).
[–] corrbrick [S] 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
You are so right. It all boils down to our giving, or denying consent.
[–] Lawyer42 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
It’s a loss actually. The case was dismissed. This is just spin to create a positive story. All orders remain in effect.
[–] fnbs010 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
Excellent...now we need to get Oregon on that same path
[–] corrbrick [S] 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
On reading the ruling it's not such a big win after all. The legitimacy of the proclamations were not questioned, only if Inslee has the authority to enforce them, which he admits he doesn't. The next move I suppose, would be to challenge any occurrences of executive branch enforcement of the unenforceable proclamations. Probably too nuanced to make a difference to any citizens of Washington.
[–] ThisNameAlreadyTaken 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
It's my understanding that a lot of the enforcement was up to the County Sheriffs. They are elected, correct? They basically don't take orders from anyone.
[–] Basballdude 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
That's correct, but the Dept of labor and industries and our local health districts are using their dictatorial powers to cripple businesses into complying or being shut down. A huge water park in Eastern WA was shut down by labor and industries with a 10k fine. 156 employees had to be laid off.Yeah it's about the virus...not.
[–] corrbrick [S] ago
Sheriffs are elected, which unfortunately makes them political animals. Several in Michigan have declined to enforce these mandates, but too many have been very quiet.
I have seen these unconstitutional mandates being enforced city and state police, whose chiefs answer to governor and mayors. Too bad the fact that the governor can't enforced his proclamations hasn't seemed to have filter down to the goons that are enforcing his proclamations. Go figure.
[–] tradstew 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
oh sure, get my hopes up (haha). Thanks for the post and the link. Look like a good site to have on hand.
[–] Basballdude ago (edited ago)
He wouldn't make that admission unless her knew he had plausible deniability and that's why he had the Dept of Health issue the order and not the office of the governor.
[–] obvoiusly 0 points 3 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!
[–] corrbrick [S] ago
Right, he's not enforcing it, except by commanding his goons to enforce it. Twisted common sense of the (((legal))) world.
[–] PatrickSTomlinson 0 points 2 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.
[–] corrbrick [S] ago
Unfortunately, I'm afraid that you are right.
[–] 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.
[–] Matthew1103 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
LOL. No fucking win here.
[–] hope4gaia 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Now they have to do that in Crazy Cali.