Belmont Opening RUMORED to be Memorial Day Weekend

[Secondbest]

Originally Posted by Secondbest

Does anyone know if there has actually been a suit in court. State or Federal over lockdown authority.

Off topic. My bad

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Even if you bumped the purses up for the "Saratoga at Belmont" portion of the meet. Kentucky horsemen are not going to ship horses to Belmont for a "Saratoga at Belmont" meet. The prestige and allure of winning at Saratoga is gone.

Prestige doesn't pay the bills.

[drib]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Prestige doesn't pay the bills.

Especially when absolutely no one is there to watch/enjoy the victories.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

The courts follow the law. The law, developed in prior epidemics, says the government has this power.

You guys have to convince elected officials of your arguments. And in some places, the elected officials are relaxing restrictions. So there's no denial of access to the political process here.

What has happened here is very simple- 18,000 people have died in New York State. The politicians are listening to scientists because there's a killer virus on the loose. And the polls show the public is on their side.

No court is going to step into that situation. You have to convince your fellow citizens in New York that this is no longer a big deal and the risk to people's lives is worth taking. That's the only way you can have your preferences enacted.

Of course that is not really true.
If it were, we would never need courts.
Arguments can be made that calling a certain business essential is NOT being done fairly or even accurately.
Many, many other interpretations of the law can be argued. Why we have courts. For example. closing beeches while allowing parks to stay open - perfect argument of fairness.

I'm thinking you may have made a whole lot of BAD plea bargains!

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Secondbest

Does anyone know if there has actually been a suit in court. State or Federal over lockdown authority.

We just had one over the weekend with Huntington Beach challenging Gov. Newsom's ruling closing the beaches. The City lost.

As far as I know, the only challenges that have won have been based on religion, which gets special treatment under both the First Amendment and the state Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, which grant religious gatherings an exemption unless the government's actions meet the strictest scrutiny.

But while I am not specifically tracking the lawsuits by businesses, I know there have been several and they have all lost; only the suits based on religious claims have won.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Tom

Of course that is not really true.
If it were, we would never need courts.
Arguments can be made that calling a certain business essential is NOT being done fairly or even accurately.

So what? Where's the law that says that governmental decisions that affect businesses have to be done fairly or accurately?

The actual law in this area was stated in Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., which held that government may regulate or prohibit business so long as the government's action is rationally related to a legitimate state objective.

This is like basic, 1L, Con Law stuff. It's comparable to the law of supply and demand in economics- literally every lawyer has to learn this. There was a time long ago when the due process clause was held to limit governmental regulations of business. That was known as the "Lochner era" and it led to all sorts of abuse. So the Supreme Court curtailed it.

Under the Lee Optical test, basically everything governors are doing easily passes muster. The pandemic creates a legitimate state interest, and lockdowns have a rational relationship to it. That's it. Plaintiffs lose.

You seem to be proceeding on some notion that I don't know all this stuff. Or that whatever your view of the Constitution "should" be is going to be accepted by some judge somewhere over decades of US Supreme Court precedent. But that isn't how this works.

And to answer your question, we need courts because some folks, in some situations, do have legal rights that the government has violated. That doesn't mean courts insert themselves into every situation, though. There are rules.

[dilanesp]

If you are interested in why businesses don't generally have substantive due process rights enforceable against state action in America, this article is a very nice, short, readable summary of the history:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...ocess-overview

Note especially the quote from Lee Optical:

The day is gone when this Court uses the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down state laws, regulatory of business and industrial conditions, because they may be unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a particular school of thought. . . . We emphasize again what Chief Justice Waite said in Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 134, ‘For protection against abuses by legislatures the people must resort to the polls, not to the courts.’

And before anyone jumps in- just about every state has passed a statute authorizing governors to exercise emergency powers. So any due process challenge is a challenge to the work of the legislature.

[Tom]

Except that we have had LIVE racing without fans right along, and that pretty much says that it CAN be done safely.

And it could be argued that in some areas, there IS not emergency based on the numbers.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by Tom

Except that we have had LIVE racing without fans right along, and that pretty much says that it CAN be done safely.

Don't tell anyone, Tom, but he has an agenda.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

The politicians are listening to scientists because there's a killer virus on the loose.

Then how come all the states aren't following the exact same procedures?

Are they all listening to different scientists? How come they aren't listening to all the scientists I've posted that say this lockdown is fairly useless in achieving the goal of preventing people from catching this "KILLER VIRUS ON THE LOOSE?"

How come they aren't listening to the increasing number of reports that state there are at least 10x more people out there who have already contracted this disease then is being officially reported? Again, making the lockdowns even less necessary.

How come nobody in power, that I am aware of, looks at this situation logically and embraces ALL of the science? Isn't that what they are supposed to do?

You guys who keep screaming SCIENCE, are only paying attention to the part of the science that is in lockstep with your doctrine. That's not how science works.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

So what? Where's the law that says that governmental decisions that affect businesses have to be done fairly or accurately?

The actual law in this area was stated in Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., which held that government may regulate or prohibit business so long as the government's action is rationally related to a legitimate state objective.

This is like basic, 1L, Con Law stuff. It's comparable to the law of supply and demand in economics- literally every lawyer has to learn this. There was a time long ago when the due process clause was held to limit governmental regulations of business. That was known as the "Lochner era" and it led to all sorts of abuse. So the Supreme Court curtailed it.

Under the Lee Optical test, basically everything governors are doing easily passes muster. The pandemic creates a legitimate state interest, and lockdowns have a rational relationship to it. That's it. Plaintiffs lose.

You seem to be proceeding on some notion that I don't know all this stuff. Or that whatever your view of the Constitution "should" be is going to be accepted by some judge somewhere over decades of US Supreme Court precedent. But that isn't how this works.

And to answer your question, we need courts because some folks, in some situations, do have legal rights that the government has violated. That doesn't mean courts insert themselves into every situation, though. There are rules.

Here's what I think. I think you're operating on ANCIENT HISTORY.

I think there haven't been very many challenges yet, because most people accepted what was happening as necessary.

Now, people aren't as accepting as they were a month ago.

Now, I think you're going to see more lawsuits if this drags out much longer.

And I think you're going to see everything isn't so black and white, because what is happening NOW has NEVER happened before, thus, no precedent.

I know you'll disagree and wave your profession in my face, but you're wrong a lot for a bright, successful lawyer...so I'll take my chances.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Don't tell anyone, Tom, but he has an agenda.

I support you guys reopening (without fans). So I am not sure what agenda you think I have.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Here's what I think. I think you're operating on ANCIENT HISTORY.

I think there haven't been very many challenges yet, because most people accepted what was happening as necessary.

Now, people aren't as accepting as they were a month ago.

Now, I think you're going to see more lawsuits if this drags out much longer.

And I think you're going to see everything isn't so black and white, because what is happening NOW has NEVER happened before, thus, no precedent.

I know you'll disagree and wave your profession in my face, but you're wrong a lot for a bright, successful lawyer...so I'll take my chances.

I am actually right most of the time here- and my record on the coronavirus and on horse racing related legal issues has been spotless. Yours has not.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I am actually right most of the time here- and my record on the coronavirus and on horse racing related legal issues has been spotless. Yours has not.

What have I gotten wrong?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

What have I gotten wrong?

Well let's start with "this is no worse than the flu".

And of course you have gotten the due process clause completely wrong.

Just to be clear, there have been lawsuits and there will continue to be some. But since the standard of review is Lee Optical, absent a religion or protected class issue they will all eventually lose. Governors basically have plenary powers to order businesses closed. Apparently you didn't realize this (and still seem to think the power depends on what stage of the pandemic we are in), but all of this is fully constitutional. If it weren't, there would have already been successful challenges. Business owners' lawyers told them "don't bother, the cases are losers".