School districts win case in Arlington Cnty vs. Gov. EO re: mask mandates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

I’m tired of wearing masks and expect that they will not be required very soon. I’m just so happy that this overreach was not vindicated.

+1

Masks are coming off.

And not because of Trumpkin's premature, illegal mandate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

Because voting for a R representative will change masking at your kid's school.

IRRATIONAL.

NP. No. But voting out the current school board will help. This is one of many reasons.

What is the motivation to vote straight R?

Spiteful a-hole?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

Masks are going to be optional by the end of the month (or no later than mid-March ... the two year anniversary of when Covid hit). The latest UVA model for cases has this area being at about 8 cases per 100k by the end of Feb.

Going to 6 new cases per 100k people the first week in March.

You won't have to wear a mask forever. Just a LITTLE BIT longer. Be patient.

As long as this case is in litigation there is exactly zero chance of APS doing that. They've dug themselves in too deep about how useful masks are, and they have to avoid the appearance of weakness or defeat in the face of Youngkin's onslaught. Otherwise people will ask why they spent money hiring lawyers instead of just doing was Falls Church did and set their own date for taking off the masks.

Falls Church already emailed a press release about this. There is no way they are going mask optional now.

If I’m interpreting this correctly, are we stuck in masks until SB1303 expires this summer? FCCPS never wanted to make masks optional. They put that out there, joined the lawsuit and then constantly emailed how we are a caring community and need to wear masks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

Masks are going to be optional by the end of the month (or no later than mid-March ... the two year anniversary of when Covid hit). The latest UVA model for cases has this area being at about 8 cases per 100k by the end of Feb.

Going to 6 new cases per 100k people the first week in March.

You won't have to wear a mask forever. Just a LITTLE BIT longer. Be patient.

As long as this case is in litigation there is exactly zero chance of APS doing that. They've dug themselves in too deep about how useful masks are, and they have to avoid the appearance of weakness or defeat in the face of Youngkin's onslaught. Otherwise people will ask why they spent money hiring lawyers instead of just doing was Falls Church did and set their own date for taking off the masks.

Falls Church was being lawless when they did that.

Masks will soon be optional. But Youngkin doesn't have the authority to do it by fiat.

Two statements, only one of which can be true.

Falls Church wasn't being lawless, they were being practical, because they knew it would take past Valentine's day to figure out the issue in the courts, and it was obvious that cases would be low enough by then to get away with it.

APS and FCPS on the other hand, got huffy and decided to make it a political issue to try to thumb their nose at the governor. So instead of requesting an extension from the state, they're going to keep the issue alive until well into next month. By that point continued masking is going to look increasingly stupid and they'll all be out on a limb (shades of virtual learning, anyone?)

Ever get into a argument with someone, only to have them repeatedly interrupt others by saying "Can I finish? Can I finish?" And then when the room goes quiet to hear what they have to say, they've forgotten their point and just go "Ok I'm finished". That's what APS and FCPS look like right now.

[Anonymous]

"injuction until legal process plays out"....so who did this arlington judge punt to? being a woman myself I wish she had the balls to rule on this -even if I was in disagreement..wimpy lib

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

Masks are going to be optional by the end of the month (or no later than mid-March ... the two year anniversary of when Covid hit). The latest UVA model for cases has this area being at about 8 cases per 100k by the end of Feb.

Going to 6 new cases per 100k people the first week in March.

You won't have to wear a mask forever. Just a LITTLE BIT longer. Be patient.

As long as this case is in litigation there is exactly zero chance of APS doing that. They've dug themselves in too deep about how useful masks are, and they have to avoid the appearance of weakness or defeat in the face of Youngkin's onslaught. Otherwise people will ask why they spent money hiring lawyers instead of just doing was Falls Church did and set their own date for taking off the masks.

Falls Church was being lawless when they did that.

Masks will soon be optional. But Youngkin doesn't have the authority to do it by fiat.

Two statements, only one of which can be true.

Falls Church wasn't being lawless, they were being practical, because they knew it would take past Valentine's day to figure out the issue in the courts, and it was obvious that cases would be low enough by then to get away with it.

APS and FCPS on the other hand, got huffy and decided to make it a political issue to try to thumb their nose at the governor. So instead of requesting an extension from the state, they're going to keep the issue alive until well into next month. By that point continued masking is going to look increasingly stupid and they'll all be out on a limb (shades of virtual learning, anyone?)

Ever get into a argument with someone, only to have them repeatedly interrupt others by saying "Can I finish? Can I finish?" And then when the room goes quiet to hear what they have to say, they've forgotten their point and just go "Ok I'm finished". That's what APS and FCPS look like right now.

I dont trust FCC for even a Hollywood minute...just expecting crazy emails from them tonight or this weekend...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"injuction until legal process plays out"....so who did this arlington judge punt to? being a woman myself I wish she had the balls to rule on this -even if I was in disagreement..wimpy lib

Er, that's what temporary injunctions are. Sorry that you don't like courts and laws and stuff like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

Masks are going to be optional by the end of the month (or no later than mid-March ... the two year anniversary of when Covid hit). The latest UVA model for cases has this area being at about 8 cases per 100k by the end of Feb.

Going to 6 new cases per 100k people the first week in March.

You won't have to wear a mask forever. Just a LITTLE BIT longer. Be patient.

As long as this case is in litigation there is exactly zero chance of APS doing that. They've dug themselves in too deep about how useful masks are, and they have to avoid the appearance of weakness or defeat in the face of Youngkin's onslaught. Otherwise people will ask why they spent money hiring lawyers instead of just doing was Falls Church did and set their own date for taking off the masks.

Falls Church was being lawless when they did that.

Masks will soon be optional. But Youngkin doesn't have the authority to do it by fiat.

Two statements, only one of which can be true.

Falls Church wasn't being lawless, they were being practical, because they knew it would take past Valentine's day to figure out the issue in the courts, and it was obvious that cases would be low enough by then to get away with it.

APS and FCPS on the other hand, got huffy and decided to make it a political issue to try to thumb their nose at the governor. So instead of requesting an extension from the state, they're going to keep the issue alive until well into next month. By that point continued masking is going to look increasingly stupid and they'll all be out on a limb (shades of virtual learning, anyone?)

Ever get into a argument with someone, only to have them repeatedly interrupt others by saying "Can I finish? Can I finish?" And then when the room goes quiet to hear what they have to say, they've forgotten their point and just go "Ok I'm finished". That's what APS and FCPS look like right now.

So no. The state has a health department and the county of Fairfax has a health department. During a pandemic, those guys can tell school districts when masks will be optional.

The governor made an illegal (clearly illegal, that's what this injunction means) executive order. Even if you agree with it, he doesn't have the power to do it. Laws are good, we follow them, agree with them or not. The alternative is lawlessness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

Masks are going to be optional by the end of the month (or no later than mid-March ... the two year anniversary of when Covid hit). The latest UVA model for cases has this area being at about 8 cases per 100k by the end of Feb.

Going to 6 new cases per 100k people the first week in March.

You won't have to wear a mask forever. Just a LITTLE BIT longer. Be patient.

As long as this case is in litigation there is exactly zero chance of APS doing that. They've dug themselves in too deep about how useful masks are, and they have to avoid the appearance of weakness or defeat in the face of Youngkin's onslaught. Otherwise people will ask why they spent money hiring lawyers instead of just doing was Falls Church did and set their own date for taking off the masks.

Falls Church already emailed a press release about this. There is no way they are going mask optional now.

If I’m interpreting this correctly, are we stuck in masks until SB1303 expires this summer? FCCPS never wanted to make masks optional. They put that out there, joined the lawsuit and then constantly emailed how we are a caring community and need to wear masks.

I think we’ll be mask optional until the CDC stops recommending them. Once the CDC changes it’s guidance, then schools will be able to follow suit. With numbers dropping, coupled with political pressure for Biden to show flexibility, I think we’ll see CDC doing so by mid-Spring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

Masks are going to be optional by the end of the month (or no later than mid-March ... the two year anniversary of when Covid hit). The latest UVA model for cases has this area being at about 8 cases per 100k by the end of Feb.

Going to 6 new cases per 100k people the first week in March.

You won't have to wear a mask forever. Just a LITTLE BIT longer. Be patient.

As long as this case is in litigation there is exactly zero chance of APS doing that. They've dug themselves in too deep about how useful masks are, and they have to avoid the appearance of weakness or defeat in the face of Youngkin's onslaught. Otherwise people will ask why they spent money hiring lawyers instead of just doing was Falls Church did and set their own date for taking off the masks.

Falls Church already emailed a press release about this. There is no way they are going mask optional now.

If I’m interpreting this correctly, are we stuck in masks until SB1303 expires this summer? FCCPS never wanted to make masks optional. They put that out there, joined the lawsuit and then constantly emailed how we are a caring community and need to wear masks.

I think we’ll be mask optional until the CDC stops recommending them. Once the CDC changes it’s guidance, then schools will be able to follow suit. With numbers dropping, coupled with political pressure for Biden to show flexibility, I think we’ll see CDC doing so by mid-Spring.

Yup. Our schools are following CDC. And I'm guessing that as the numbers come back down the CDC will make a big shift this spring to change quarantines/masking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

Masks are going to be optional by the end of the month (or no later than mid-March ... the two year anniversary of when Covid hit). The latest UVA model for cases has this area being at about 8 cases per 100k by the end of Feb.

Going to 6 new cases per 100k people the first week in March.

You won't have to wear a mask forever. Just a LITTLE BIT longer. Be patient.

As long as this case is in litigation there is exactly zero chance of APS doing that. They've dug themselves in too deep about how useful masks are, and they have to avoid the appearance of weakness or defeat in the face of Youngkin's onslaught. Otherwise people will ask why they spent money hiring lawyers instead of just doing was Falls Church did and set their own date for taking off the masks.

Falls Church was being lawless when they did that.

Masks will soon be optional. But Youngkin doesn't have the authority to do it by fiat.

Two statements, only one of which can be true.

Falls Church wasn't being lawless, they were being practical, because they knew it would take past Valentine's day to figure out the issue in the courts, and it was obvious that cases would be low enough by then to get away with it.

APS and FCPS on the other hand, got huffy and decided to make it a political issue to try to thumb their nose at the governor. So instead of requesting an extension from the state, they're going to keep the issue alive until well into next month. By that point continued masking is going to look increasingly stupid and they'll all be out on a limb (shades of virtual learning, anyone?)

Ever get into a argument with someone, only to have them repeatedly interrupt others by saying "Can I finish? Can I finish?" And then when the room goes quiet to hear what they have to say, they've forgotten their point and just go "Ok I'm finished". That's what APS and FCPS look like right now.

I dont trust FCC for even a Hollywood minute...just expecting crazy emails from them tonight or this weekend...

I already got the press release. I’m staff and double checked. The email only went to us. That means your copy is coming soon. Some staff wanted parents to have a choice and do not agree with the way this has been handled, especially by FCCPS. We don’t trust them either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

Masks are going to be optional by the end of the month (or no later than mid-March ... the two year anniversary of when Covid hit). The latest UVA model for cases has this area being at about 8 cases per 100k by the end of Feb.

Going to 6 new cases per 100k people the first week in March.

You won't have to wear a mask forever. Just a LITTLE BIT longer. Be patient.

As long as this case is in litigation there is exactly zero chance of APS doing that. They've dug themselves in too deep about how useful masks are, and they have to avoid the appearance of weakness or defeat in the face of Youngkin's onslaught. Otherwise people will ask why they spent money hiring lawyers instead of just doing was Falls Church did and set their own date for taking off the masks.

Because they want to define when the masks come on or come off. It's not the governor's decision.

Last PP is right. The judge said that when the legislature gives discretionary authority to the school districts, the gov can't just step in and decide for the school districts. SB1303 gave the school districts the discretionary authority to figure out which mitigation measures were practical. That authority is theirs to decide as they see fit. Where authority is given to the schools, it is NOT given to the gov.

Butt out, Youngkin!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the update - I hadn't heard. I hope I don't have to vote straight R in the midterms though, but I will if masks aren't optional by start of Fall 2022.

Masks are going to be optional by the end of the month (or no later than mid-March ... the two year anniversary of when Covid hit). The latest UVA model for cases has this area being at about 8 cases per 100k by the end of Feb.

Going to 6 new cases per 100k people the first week in March.

You won't have to wear a mask forever. Just a LITTLE BIT longer. Be patient.

As long as this case is in litigation there is exactly zero chance of APS doing that. They've dug themselves in too deep about how useful masks are, and they have to avoid the appearance of weakness or defeat in the face of Youngkin's onslaught. Otherwise people will ask why they spent money hiring lawyers instead of just doing was Falls Church did and set their own date for taking off the masks.

Because they want to define when the masks come on or come off. It's not the governor's decision.

Last PP is right. The judge said that when the legislature gives discretionary authority to the school districts, the gov can't just step in and decide for the school districts. SB1303 gave the school districts the discretionary authority to figure out which mitigation measures were practical. That authority is theirs to decide as they see fit. Where authority is given to the schools, it is NOT given to the gov.

Butt out, Youngkin!

Cant SB 1303 rescinded by the VA senate? Peterson already said he would vote with the Rs on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

I’m tired of wearing masks and expect that they will not be required very soon. I’m just so happy that this overreach was not vindicated.

Same.
+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"injuction until legal process plays out"....so who did this arlington judge punt to? being a woman myself I wish she had the balls to rule on this -even if I was in disagreement..wimpy lib

She didn’t punt to anyone. This hearing was about the motions for temporary injunction filed by both sides. As the name would suggest, it is a temporary measure put into place while the parties fully litigate the issue. The ruling is based in part of a finding that the school systems are likely to prevail in the end, but less as he’s open the possibility that once the parties have had a chance to fully brief the issues, the ultimate outcome could be different.

The judge did exactly what she was supposed to do. You just don’t understand the legal process.