Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Today’s quotable

Posted in:

Illinois

* From a 7th Circuit of the US Court of Appeals ruling on a lawsuit designed to halt vaccination and COVID testing mandates…

Plaintiffs in each case have failed to provide facts sufficient to show that the challenged mandates abridge a fundamental right. Nor do they provide a textual or historical argument for their constitutional interpretation. Plaintiffs do not cite any controlling case law or other legal authority in support of their position, instead relying on decisions that are either factually distinguishable or that have been overruled. Neither this court nor the district judges deny that requiring the administration of an unwanted vaccine involves important privacy interests. But the record developed and presented here does not demonstrate that these interests qualify as a fundamental right under substantive due process.

Other than that, they had a great case. /s

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Aug 30, 22 @ 9:24 am

Comments

“But, your Honors… we’re angry. That has to mean something”

- The Unhelpful

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 30, 22 @ 9:38 am
” failed to provide facts”
“Nor do they provide a textual or historical argument for their constitutional interpretation”
“Plaintiffs do not cite any controlling case law…”
Did they at least spell their names right?

Comment by Bruce( no not him) Tuesday, Aug 30, 22 @ 9:41 am
Similarly, DeVore posted that he won his appeal a few weeks ago, when the judge ruled his case was moot.

Comment by H-W Tuesday, Aug 30, 22 @ 9:49 am
The Appeals Court has overlooked that most cherished of American rights, the right to be stupid.

It may not be written down anywhere, but it has hundreds of years of precedent and is regularly exercised by a large portion of the populace.

From listening to bad music to smoking bad cigarettes to voting for bad candidates, the inalienable right to be stupid is simply a patriotic entitlement that must not be infringed.

Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Tuesday, Aug 30, 22 @ 9:52 am
Facts…… we don’t need no stinking facts.

Comment by We’ll See Tuesday, Aug 30, 22 @ 10:08 am
The tactic is to use courts to give a perception of independent authenticity to the claims being made by the plaintiff.

Then the plaintiff runs around and makes their claims and references their own court case, as if that means their claims are automatically true.

It’s why Devore almost always dropped his own cases just as his TROs were about to expire.

More people need to know anyone could file a court claim against their neighbor for eating all the cheese on the moon, as long as you have the filing fee. Doesn’t matter that it would get tossed on an immediate summary judgement, all that matters is being able to use the courts as a stage.

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Tuesday, Aug 30, 22 @ 10:08 am
More like this from our courts.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Aug 30, 22 @ 10:16 am
Ok, a simple wrong would’ve done just fine, but…

https://youtu.be/Ec7rCsNFn30

Comment by Ok Tuesday, Aug 30, 22 @ 10:17 am
==Doesn’t matter that it would get tossed on an immediate summary judgement==

It would go out on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and not even get to the summary judgment stage.

Comment by Big Dipper Tuesday, Aug 30, 22 @ 10:43 am
–It would go out on a motion to dismiss–

Maybe eventually, but not immediately.

Never underestimate the Orly Taitz’s of the worlds patience for filling out paperwork, no matter how far out in left field the claims are. They know exactly how to work around 12(b)(6), to ensure the case lasts as long as possible.

“All the cheese on the moon belongs to me. You ate all the cheese on the moon, and owe me compensation for said property. Here’s my notarized title for moon cheese showing I’m the owner, notarized by me. Here’s a picture of you holding cheese with the moon in the same field of view.”

At the very least, your first court appearance would lead to an option to file an amended complaint, which keeps the case alive a bit longer - which is the point of using the courts as a stage.

I’ve seen losing politicians try to sue the public for the salary they would have gotten if they won their respective election. There are a lot of people who will willingly abuse the court system in this world.

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Tuesday, Aug 30, 22 @ 11:50 am
Setting aside the facts, the case law and the constitution, don’t overlook the most important aspect of this lawsuit: The attorneys got paid.

– MrJM

Comment by MisterJayEm Tuesday, Aug 30, 22 @ 3:05 pm
Thank you MrJM for clarifying the purpose. For a minute there TheInvisibleMan had me convinced the purpose was that all the world’s a stage and we are merely players.

Comment by Lurker Tuesday, Aug 30, 22 @ 3:30 pm
Frivolous would have sufficed.

Comment by Dotnonymous Tuesday, Aug 30, 22 @ 5:06 pm