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

[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.

The current school board MUST GO! Everyone agrees on that.

[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.

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Cant SB 1303 rescinded by the VA senate?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.

Be careful what you wish for, SB 1303 is the only thing preventing schools from going fully virtual if we have another spike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK fair enough, so in what Court will the legal process play out? what is the next step?

[Anonymous]

Our family stands firmly behind the judicial decision.

[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!

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our family stands firmly behind the judicial decision.

That was not finalized yet. Give them your firm "maybe"!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK fair enough, so in what Court will the legal process play out? what is the next step?

The case stays in the same court and the regular process in the legal system will play out—discovery, motions, trial, etc.

A temporary injunction means the status quo (in this case mask mandates in these local districts) stays in place while the case reaches a final conclusion.

Often when a party loses at the preliminary injunction stage, that is a preview to the fact that they may ultimately have a losing argument and could end up settling. Not sure exactly what that would look like or what Youngkin’s next move will be.

Says a lot that one of his first acts in office was already struck down by the courts this quickly.

[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.

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.

I'd love to see that VA code. Link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I'd love to see that VA code. Link?

Why do you need them? These are the LAWS! They protect your HEALTH!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I'd love to see that VA code. Link?

LOL, SB1303. But you knew that already and just want to rehash what the judge already ruled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK fair enough, so in what Court will the legal process play out? what is the next step?

The case stays in the same court and the regular process in the legal system will play out—discovery, motions, trial, etc.

A temporary injunction means the status quo (in this case mask mandates in these local districts) stays in place while the case reaches a final conclusion.

Often when a party loses at the preliminary injunction stage, that is a preview to the fact that they may ultimately have a losing argument and could end up settling. Not sure exactly what that would look like or what Youngkin’s next move will be.

Says a lot that one of his first acts in office was already struck down by the courts this quickly.

thanks!
The Arlington Court needs to act fast though, they cant keep the temp injuction for months as the GOV will want it moved to the next higher court for an appeal -correct?

[Anonymous]

The judge is married to one of the parties in the suit's employees so is that going to be a problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The judge basically said that since the legislature expressly gave the school districts the authority to determine which of the CDC mitigation measures were practicable, the Governor cannot simply over-ride what the legislature squarely put on the schools to decide.

“The single issue before the court is whether the Governor, via his emergency powers, can override the decision of local school boards delegated to then under SB 1303. The court concludes the Governor cannot," she continued.

So then Northam’s EO about masks was null and void this whole time?

[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

You know what I don’t like, being a woman myself? When women go out of their way to make ignorant sexist attacks on women for doing exactly what they are supposed to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge basically said that since the legislature expressly gave the school districts the authority to determine which of the CDC mitigation measures were practicable, the Governor cannot simply over-ride what the legislature squarely put on the schools to decide.

“The single issue before the court is whether the Governor, via his emergency powers, can override the decision of local school boards delegated to then under SB 1303. The court concludes the Governor cannot," she continued.

So then Northam’s EO about masks was null and void this whole time?

So remind me when Northam told parents to disobey school district rules? When did that happen?