you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

You're right. It's SCOTUS having already decided on this issue like 200 years ago that does.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

You just love to support federal oversight, don't you?

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

No, I think the federal government has gotten way too large and is just completely ignoring the 10th Amendment at this point. That doesn't change the fact that SCOTUS ruled quarantines are legal like 200 years ago.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You need to learn English. Quarantine means isolating SICK people. Not people who tested positive on some bogus test and who are perfectly fine. Quarantine does not mean isolating healthy people or forcing them to wear face diapers.

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

About the level of retardation I've come to expect from you. You could have bothered to try to look up the actual case, which specifically dealt with the constitutionality of a general ban. You also could have stopped to ask yourself if your narrow definition can actually stand up to scrutiny. But of course, you didn't. Nope, just more retard spew from you, as usual.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Why don't you scrutinize it, and then we'll all see how well it holds up to your mighty brain?