The word parsing on this forum is reaching new levels.
1 Like
Yeah the title is a bit deceptive.
But the Federal and State Governments have essentially ALREADY determined that lack of immunity is an impairment, otherwise, why the **** is everybody being forced to stay home.
It has already been established that lack of immunity is an impairment under the current circumstances.
That means pretty much close to 100% of the population of the United States suffers from this impairment.
An impairment that prevents or impedes normal activity is legally defined as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
So the Judge is acting in the context of something that has already been defined as legally impairing.
And an impairment can be shared by 100% of the population, something that this pandemic has showed.
Now if we start to develop herd immunity, a vaccine is developed or for some reason the pandemic runs its course on its own, this disability exemption would end.
However, Texas would have to modify its statute to avoid an Amendment 26 challenge, by eliminating the automatic entitlement to an absentee ballot for those 65 and older.
Of course, it would be so much better if Texas simply allowed EVERYBODY to freely chose whether they want to vote by mail or in person at a polling station, not just now but permanently.
Florida does this.
And even though they are VERY evenly divided by party, they have managed to elect and reelect Republican Governors, Senators and Cabinet Members.
Stop fearing the absentee ballot.
Embrace it.
1 Like
A federal appeals court Wednesday quickly put on a hold a ruling that paved the way in Texas for a dramatic expansion of mail-in voting due to fears of the coronavirus.
The move by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans came less than 24 hours after a federal judge in San Antonio ruled that Texas must give all 16 million registered voters in the state the option of voting by mail during the pandemic.
And less than 24 hours later . . . . court of appeals says . . . . . . No. Lets look at this further.
1 Like
Not having antibodies is not a disability.
The arguments in favor of this ruling are beyond asinine and ridiculous.
Weâve never shut down the polling places for prior outbreaks and itâs insane to suggest we should for this one particularly since itâs all but certain it will be over well before November.
Only when you have gone through the process to get diagnosed and put on disability.
Wrong, itâs up to the Social Security Administration.
No, itâs ridiculous unless you are in the highest risk categories in which case youâre almost certainly already disabled.
Yes when you apply you have a doctor give a summary of the disability to the government they rarely ask for more proof or bring in their own doctor unless something seem fraudulent
Is this the procedure in Canada?
At this point, all the 5th Circuit has done is issue an administrative stay, they have NOT yet vacated the preliminary injunction, just stayed it.
We shall see as to whether they choose to enjoin the preliminary injunction or remove their stay after due consideration.
What do you think this means . . . what I put in my post?
After a further look, they should issue a stay ruling that immunity or non immunity to a desease is NOT a disability. If people arenât immune to the annual flue â are they disabled? How about the common cold? How about if they are suseptible to other things? WIll everyone in the USA soon be âdisabledâ?
1 Like
The ramifications if this survives the appeals process are staggering.
Everyone in the US would immediately qualify for SSI since we all lack antibodies for numerous communicable diseases.
It may not have been entirely clear to everybody reading on the board, particularly given that some people may not understand the nature of an administrative stay.
1 Like
And it ainât clear to some of the press, obviously. So it obviously wonât be clear to much of the population at large.
NO.
They did NOT side with Paxton at this time. They issued an administrative stay. Nothing more.
That articleâs headline is wrong and several other sources are wrong too.
the federal government isnât forcing anyone to do anything.
otherwise, do stay at home orders exclude those whoâve already had covid?
the rest of the drivel you posted is fairly meaningless repetition that answered itself by asking the same question., do stay at home orders exclude those whoâve already had covid?
The only thing the feds have done or have authority to do is issue guidelines and recommendations.
Beyond that they can provide aid to the states in a disaster but without a declaration of martial law suspending habeus corpus thatâs it.
That is continually ignored, forgotten, or denied by our âfriendsâ on the left.
That is how it work everywhere the government doesnât have the money to afford to hire doctor to perform their own independent medical examination on everyone apply for benefits.
if they did such things as disability fraud wouldnât exist.
I think it was clear . . . . no. lets look at this further.
The government is protecting itself.
