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

[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 City is part of the lawsuit too.

Well they will appear as idiots then as the SB ITSELF withOUT any duress voted 5-2 to make opt outs possible starting 2/14....tbh was surprised they did this at the time but they will appear as political pawns if they do this now and make an 180

Honest question, why did Falls Church City participate in the law suit if the school board decided to go mask optional on Feb 14?

Because they had zero intention of dropping masks on Feb 14. Anyone who thinks FCC is leading the charge on dropping masks doesn’t live here and doesn’t know Noonan or the SB

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

It's only a problem if you're A Major A**

or according to VA law. But whateves.

What VA law forbids this? Serious question.

https://www.vacourts.gov/courts/scv/canons_of_judicial_conduct.pdf

D. 1. g. i-iii.

I don't care b/c we're immunocompromised so we're masked regardless. Just don't like hypocrisy.

We could argue over whether it's de minimus, but how do you know she didn't disclose it?

Per the Washington Post, she did disclose that her husband works for APS. Nobody objected.

[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 City is part of the lawsuit too.

Well they will appear as idiots then as the SB ITSELF withOUT any duress voted 5-2 to make opt outs possible starting 2/14....tbh was surprised they did this at the time but they will appear as political pawns if they do this now and make a 180

Well they will appear as idiots then as the SB ITSELF withOUT any duress voted 5-2 to make opt outs possible starting 2/14....tbh was surprised they did this at the time but they will appear as political pawns if they do this now and make an 180

Honest question, why did Falls Church City participate in the law suit if the school board decided to go mask optional on Feb 14?

Because they had zero intention of dropping masks on Feb 14. Anyone who thinks FCC is leading the charge on dropping masks doesn’t live here and doesn’t know Noonan or the SB

[Anonymous]

Falls Church City is part of the lawsuit too.



Well they=FCC will appear as idiots then as the SB ITSELF withOUT any duress voted 5-2 to make opt outs possible starting 2/14....tbh was surprised they did this at the time but they will appear as political pawns if they do this now and make a 180

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

It's only a problem if you're A Major A**

or according to VA law. But whateves.

What VA law forbids this? Serious question.

https://www.vacourts.gov/courts/scv/canons_of_judicial_conduct.pdf

D. 1. g. i-iii.

I don't care b/c we're immunocompromised so we're masked regardless. Just don't like hypocrisy.

We could argue over whether it's de minimus, but how do you know she didn't disclose it?

Apparently the judge disclosed the relationship to both sides. Both sides provided written confirmation that they had no objections. So I guess those trying to make this an issue can sit TF down now.