tvc184

WAIT, this is not open for a public vote by people who don’t live in the district? There is always something new to learn……

This ruling just overturned the stay issued by the Sixth Circuit. It stops the mandate immediately however, I believe this sends it back to the circuit court for a full hearing and ruling and not just a stay. Remember that the circuit court did not hear a full case in court, they just issued a temporary order overturning the Fifth Circuit rule to the contrary. If the circuit court in Ohio upholds the OSHA mandate, the Supreme Court will likely then grant review (certiorari) and issue a final ruling. In that case there will be a final decision that the OSHA mandate was unlawful. If the Sixth Circuit overturns The mandate at that level, it will probably end as unlawful because the Supreme Court within deny review and let the lower court order stand. There are two ways in effect that the Supreme Court can make a ruling. One is to hear a case and then come to a decision. The other is to simply refuse to hear the case. In that situation whatever happened previously, stands. If the Supreme Court does not grant review of the lower court case ruling, it basically agrees that there is no point in hearing the case.

The United States Supreme Court just struck down the OSHA vaccine mandate.

It is not that the other side “would” have done the same. The other side “did” do the same. The Republicans did nothing until the Democrats removed the filibuster to get federal judges approved. They were warned by McConnell, if they change the rules, it would come back to haunt them. The Democrats changed the rules but later did not like the result. They assumed that Hillary would win and then it would be no problem.

I am sure the Facebook fact checkers came in and declared her as putting out false information.….

Yep. Freedom of information act does not mean you can walk into a government agency and walk out with the information. Any person can ask for required paperwork, recording, etc., (everything is not open to discovery) but the government entity has 10 days to respond.

School at any level doesn’t make a person intelligent. School gives a person knowledge. It is like the difference between ignorance and stupidity.

I think that was B13’s intent on this page. Not necessarily specifically Crime but anything local. I know crime could keep it busy…..

To maybe explain it further; states do not enforce federal law, the federal government does. That is why you have federal special agents such as FBI, DEA, ATFetc., and the United States Attorney offices. The federals prosecute what they want under their law and the state prosecutes what it wants under state law. One does not generally cross into the other. If Colorado does not want to prosecute people under Colorado state law for possession of marijuana, great. The federal government still retains the right under their law to prosecute. In most cases, as a state police officer I cannot enforce federal laws and federal agents cannot enforce state laws. An FBI agent has no authority in Texas to pull you over for speeding yet I can pull you over for a license plate light out at night and put you in jail and tow your car. It is not because a state police officer has more authority than a federal agent but he simply enforcing the laws of his state whereas the federal agent is enforcing the laws of the United States. That is the dual sovereignty. So….. The federal law says that we have an income tax and you will pay it. The state police do not enforce that as it is not a state law. The federal government has the authority to enforce that laws. The state of Texas has no authority to tell its citizens, don’t pay attention to federal law. Clear as mud?

No. It is not even in the same ballpark. Both the state and federal governments independently have the right to make criminal and civil laws. The supremacy clause of the Constitution only comes into play if a federal law says basically “you will comply with this”. Both governments have the right independently to prosecute or sue. It is called dual sovereignty.

Yep, it is good to be the king.

I don’t think legally there is a difference. Politically there is. I have not taken the vaccine and do not plan on it. I think that it certainly is effective to some extent and it also poses a danger to many people. I am more worried about the danger it poses to people regardless of how effective it may be. But I don’t see where that negates federal authority. I do think what OSHA did is unconstitutional and or doesn’t follow federal law. I just don’t think under the constitution you can separate statutory authority whether under OSHA or income tax under Article VI.

I think the whole concept is pretty scary.

I would actually venture to guess that the majority of democratic voters are what we would call moderate or not extreme left. The problem is that they are so eaten up with party affiliation, just like pulling for your favorite football team, but they are blinded to what is happening. There was a time going back to the Great Depression that the Democrats claimed to be the party of the “working man”. They were for unionization and the Republicans were for a big business and not having forced unions. My best friend growing up and his family were absolutely Democrats and I heard his father say how could a working man ever vote for a Republican. I think that much of that thought continues through this day even with evidence to the contrary. I think the problem is not what the average working democrat believes but what he is told is the truth. Like in the Wizard of Oz, ignore the man behind the curtain….

And I am not against what he said, I just don’t think it’s legal.

If I understood it correctly, I believe Prather said that Abbott’s executive orders or mandates were not effective. He was not complaining about the Texas governor right to issue such mandates. I believe he is referring to the fact that the governor issued an executive order saying that people would not lose their job due to not being vaccinated. That was not complaining about the governor, it was saying that it was ineffective because the Biden administration, through himself, CDC, OSHA, etc., has issued mandates to the contrary of the Texas governor. Prather wants a special legislative session for the Texas Congress to pass a law that says federal mandates are not allowed in Texas. Basically the governor mandate is not good enough, it needs a full weight of the Texas legislature. That however contradicts Article VI of the United States Constitution.

People have long since said that 1984 is upon us. That was because of technology such as facial recognition, heat imaging that can track movement, license plate readers etc. That is not 1984, that is really progress. What is going on now is the beginning of 1984. It is becoming Newspeak that will replaced oldspeak and blackwhite will (currently) be used frequently. I am fairly certain that we are currently seeing miniplenty and recdep.

Jim Jordan should probably be the next Speaker of the House but he will not be and I don’t think he wants it.

That sounds good but if you read the title it seems like he is talking about mandates issued by the Texas governor. , Watching the video we see that he was talking about mandates on the United States law. The problem is that it would be a conflict with Article VI of the United States Constitution. He had just as well call a special session and say people living in Texas no longer have to pay federal income tax.

One strike called for not being in the box (one foot outside of the line) and out if he his it? Not an umpire but coached Little League for a few years… about 40 years ago. Just taking a wild guess for fun.

I typed something similar last night but never posted it. YEAR: 2075, the children who were in 1st grade at WOS in 2022 are now grandparents and… WOSHS is looking for a new head football coach. There is concern in the community however because Dan Hooks scheme might change if an “outsider” is brought in. But…. wasn’t Hooks an outsider?

The fair way to do it is to eliminate the property tax and go with an income tax. That thought however it’s repugnant to most people, especially those who do not own property. I believe the Texas Constitution forbids an income tax so it’s not merely a matter of enacting a law, the Constitution have to be changed. That would take an election of the people and I can just about guarantee that people will not want any income tax and again, especially those who do not own properties.

About?

It is highly unlikely. Percentage wise it was not that many people and generally speaking, the homicide rates dropped after Katrina and then Rita. The other major crimes have remain virtually unchanged from 2006 to today.

Because homicide is the most violent it is what everybody thinks about when mentioning crime, not shoplifting at Walmart. However….. If you read my post I mentioned all major crime. Beaumont has a 200% higher than the national average and Port Arthur has a home 150% higher than the national average. That is not homicide but burglaries, sexual assaults, arson, etc.