Well, in fairness to them, I learned I don’t want no Scrubs. Which is good as I think that aired on ABC

I do agree that, generally speaking, the Executive Branch isn’t designed to create laws, but it literally has these powers. PHEs, Martial Law, Executive Orders; the Executive Branch has tools in statute to meet the needs of crises.

I was arguing the context though tbf, I have my personal opinion on the ownership of weapons, however I’m not an any and all means person. That said, I leave an exemption in my thinking for emergencies, and the state of play in Albuquerque is pretty dire. Do I think it’s right to call an indefinite PHE? Probably not. Do I think it is an appropriate short term measure while longer term measures are considered? Probably yes.

The reason I bring up the curtailments in individual rights, regarding the second amendment, is to show there are many restrictions that are in place. The second amendment isn’t an absolute right at all times and in all ways; and it’s silly to think its power should outstrip other statutory tools being deployed in moderation.

Maybe I led the discussion in the wrong direction though, and for that I apologise, because I think the real question we both ponder is this, is a Public Health Emergency a moderate/proportional response to the situation at hand?

It’s a complete violation of the Constitution.

I think you might be over reaching there, unless all these concealed and open carry folk were members of a “well regulated militia” and nobody noticed… There are plenty of otherwise “infringing” restrictions on bearing arms; you can’t point a gun at a cop just because your right to bear arms is enshrined in the second amendment, you can’t wheel a functioning howitzer with you wherever you go. You can’t own a sawn-off shotgun.

She didn’t stop it. She hasn’t heard a single case; but she did express an opinion on gerrymandering being bad, which likely got her elected, and refuses to recuse herself from cases on it. Basically the state republicans want to call it a conflict of interest, and then impeach; even though the bench (conservative majority at the time) wrote rules specifically to stop them needing to recuse in this way, several years back.

What’s worse is under WI they don’t need to actually have a trial to cause havoc. All they need to do is start a proceeding; then wait. She’ll be suspended from adjudicating at that point AND the governor can’t nominate a replacement.

Total, unashamed, politick. Imagine being this afraid of black voters in 2023.

Yes, 35, UK. Drive an automatic now, but drove Manual until last year.

Go and select them then, and see what happens when your players take to the field playing touch rugby to fulfil their “obligation”.