Page 520 of 629 FirstFirst ... 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 ... LastLast
Results 12,976 to 13,000 of 15711
  1. #12976
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Keep Tacoma Feared
    Posts
    2,663
    Quote Originally Posted by mcski View Post
    NPR has hired a Senior Horse Pill Correspondent

    https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...fyJfU2USnkaGps
    Includes updates on the Ohio case but NPR should not say the ruling was "reversed." A reversal implies that a higher court found that the lower court made an incorrect decision based on the evidence and law at the time the lower court made the ruling. That is not what occurred. Here is what occurred:

    -8/20 plaintiff/wife filed complaint. Case assigned to Judge Oster, who would normally be making all decision on the case.
    -8/23, due to the emergency nature of the request, court set an emergency temporary injunction hearing. Judge Oster is busy on this date so Judge Howard filled in. Because this hearing was only three days after the complaint was filed, the Hospital/defendant presented no evidence to counter claims made by plaintiff. Judge Howard issued a temporary order that automatically expires in 14 days ordering the hospital to give the guy ivermectin. Judge Howard set a future hearing exactly 14 days from his order (the date it expires) in front of the originally assigned judge, Judge Oster. Judge Oster and Judge Howard are the same level of judges (one is not a higher court).
    -9/7, 14 days after the original temporary order, Judge Oster denies plaintiff's request for an injunction. Between 8/23 and the hearing on 9/7, the defendant/hospital filed substantial evidence outlinging the dangers and and lack of effectiveness of ivermectin (again, this evidence was not before Judge Howard when he made his decision). Also, after 8/23, but before the hearing on 9/7, the CDC, FDA, AMA all issued statements against the use of ivermectin for COVID, which was presented by the hospital and considered by Judge Oster. Finally, Dr. Wagshul, the plaintiff's star witness, testified that he had prescribed ivermectin despite the fact he had never met the patient in person and that he "honestly didn't know" if continuing to administer ivermectin would benefit the patient in any way. So Judge Oster made the easy and obvious choice to rule in favor of the hospital/defendant.

    It may be semantics, but it is important for the media to accurately report what happens in the courts or Americans lose faith in the judiciary and decry activist, politicized judges. Judge Oster did not "reverse" Judge Howard (they were different hearings, at different times, and took in consideration different facts) In fact, if Judge Oster had been the judge at the first hearing it is completely plausible, and even likely, that he would have ruled the exact same way. Poor Judge Howard had this thrown on his lap and now America thinks he's a right wing nut job because of the media's poor reporting on the case. If there is any bad guy here it is definitely Dr. Wagshul. But America loves doctors and hates lawyers so Wagshul won't suffer any consequences.

    NPR at least had the decency to link Judge Oster's ruling, which is the basis for all of the facts above:

    https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...87-oster-order

  2. #12977
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    23,347
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Physicists either invented a new dimension to accommodate the version of chess being played here, or this is just one dimensional checkers:

    https://www.breitbart.com/entertainm...p-voters-dead/
    Because leftists like Stern and CNNLOL and Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi and Anthony Fauci are deliberately looking to manipulate Trump supporters into not getting vaccinated.
    Works for me. Now they can own the libs by getting vaccinated! That'll learn 'em!

    If this is what it takes I say go for it.

  3. #12978
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    626
    Thanks for the procedural write up altasnob. Journalists often struggle with explaining these processes and standards that courts must follow and much gets lost in the shuffle. Both of these hearings had different standards the court needed to adhere to at the time. It certainly shows how important the judicial standard being applied in a case can sway the outcome of the issue at hand.

  4. #12979
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    3,736
    It may be semantics, but it is important for the media to accurately report what happens in the courts or Americans lose faith in the judiciary and decry activist, politicized judges.
    ainít the mediaís fault judges donít give a damn about explaining themselves clearly to the public.

  5. #12980
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Keep Tacoma Feared
    Posts
    2,663
    Quote Originally Posted by dunfree View Post
    ain’t the media’s fault judges don’t give a damn about explaining themselves clearly to the public.
    Bullshit. NPR either has their own lawyers on staff to help them accurately report legal decisions, or they can reach out to attorneys to help them (who will assist for free if the media agrees to name drop the attorney in the article). This is law school 101/high school civics class stuff here. They know exactly what they are doing when they use the word "reverse." They want to paint a picture of a rouge, radical, idiot, lower court judge making an unpopular opinion and then get "reversed" by the intelligent higher appellate judge. The truth is boring and NPR's version helps them get clicks.

  6. #12981
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    6,923

  7. #12982
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    3,736
    Quote Originally Posted by altasnob View Post
    Bullshit. NPR either has their own lawyers on staff to help them accurately report legal decisions, or they can reach out to attorneys to help them (who will assist for free if the media agrees to name drop the attorney in the article). This is law school 101/high school civics class stuff here. They know exactly what they are doing when they use the word "reverse." They want to paint a picture of a rouge, radical, idiot, lower court judge making an unpopular opinion and then get "reversed" by the intelligent higher appellate judge. The truth is boring and NPR's version helps them get clicks.
    oh fuck off. The judicial system doesn’t want to explain itself to the people who pay their bills. Yeah, it’s all a conspiracy

    And fyi, often editors do that shit, not the reporter.

  8. #12983
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    23,347
    The antivaxxers sure are high on things like ivermectin and monoclonal antibodies, and certainly the latter at least is known to be effective, but doesn't it seem preferable to not get severe Covid in the first place? Luckily we have these things called vaccines that are very effective at doing just that. Would you rather play Russian roulette or just not have a gun pointed at your temple in the first place?

  9. #12984
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    18,428
    So the libs like vaccines and the MAGAs like monoclonal antibodies.
    It's a matter of style--like skiing vs snowboarding.

    Isn't it?

  10. #12985
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    23,347
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    So the libs like vaccines and the MAGAs like monoclonal antibodies.
    It's a matter of style--like skiing vs snowboarding.

    Isn't it?
    Maybe more like jumping off a bridge with a bungee cord vs. without one.

  11. #12986
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    3,365
    Quote Originally Posted by altasnob View Post
    In fact, if Judge Oster had been the judge at the first hearing it is completely plausible, and even likely, that he would have ruled the exact same way. Poor Judge Howard had this thrown on his lap and now America thinks he's a right wing nut job because of the media's poor reporting on the case.
    Judge Oster also ruled even though the parties did not address any harm to third parties or the public interest, "The public interest would not be served by issuing the preliminary injunction":

    "While this court is sympathetic to the Plaintiff and understands the idea of wanting to do anything to help her loved one, public policy should not and does not support allowing a physician to try “any” type of treatment on human beings ... What is more, public policy in this case encompasses a number of broader issues including a hospital's standard of care decisions, mandating doctors and nurses to provide care they believe unnecessary, ethical concerns of all doctors involved, patient autonomy, fiduciary duty, accreditation standards for patient protections, obligating one doctor to carry out the treatment regimen/plan of another doctor, ... "


    In other words, because Oster says as a first principle the court should not medicate or legislate from the bench it's more likely he would not have ruled the same way as Judge Howard.

  12. #12987
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl_Mega View Post
    I'd have no problem with this position discussion... However, in my observations - there are like 5 maybe 6 people total taking this stance and none in a position of authority. It's a unicorn hypothetical.

    Instead, we have people that are being purposely adversarial to bettering our situation - virtually at all costs....until it's too late. Further, the standard is to use disinformation to undermine any effective means.... this includes:

    COVID denial
    COVID downplay
    COVID as a ruse for "new world order"
    Mask downplay
    Baseless mask 'risks'
    Distancing downplay
    badfaith zero-sum game position pitting COVID/measures vs. Liberty, Economics, your health
    Vaccines don't work
    Vaccines are worse than the disease
    Vaccines as a nefarious mechanism for trans human / tracking / dna modifier - outlandish conspiracy
    Vaccinated vs. unvaxed as equal risks/transmission/outcome
    Conspiracy that leads to some other remedy being denied to us
    Natural immunity as a viable "out" of the situation
    Political boogey-manship - some authority is out to get you
    Players who know the dangers, risks and best course of action but lean into the denier narrative for tribal wins
    Hypocrites who take protective measures themselves but preach non-compliance for political gamesmanship: foreign actors, financial opportunists, political hacks

    I've mentioned before - actual policy discussion is a good thing. Bad-faith posturing, backed by disinformation obfuscation is the opposing narrative norm. I'd love to see it some other way but the benevolent, principled libertarian strawman you present simply isn't representative enough to even enter the conversation - it's used as another ploy... an additional 'what if....." to give legitimacy to those who deserve none.
    This forum needs an upvote button

    Thank you for the list

  13. #12988
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,122
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Judge Oster also ruled even though the parties did not address any harm to third parties or the public interest, "The public interest would not be served by issuing the preliminary injunction":

    "While this court is sympathetic to the Plaintiff and understands the idea of wanting to do anything to help her loved one, public policy should not and does not support allowing a physician to try “any” type of treatment on human beings ... What is more, public policy in this case encompasses a number of broader issues including a hospital's standard of care decisions, mandating doctors and nurses to provide care they believe unnecessary, ethical concerns of all doctors involved, patient autonomy, fiduciary duty, accreditation standards for patient protections, obligating one doctor to carry out the treatment regimen/plan of another doctor, ... "


    In other words, because Oster says as a first principle the court should not medicate or legislate from the bench it's more likely he would not have ruled the same way as Judge Howard.
    Did the original ruling result in the guy getting Ivermectin, or did it just mean the matter was delayed 14 days?

  14. #12989
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    3,365
    In response to the original judge's emergency order the hospital administered 30mg of ivermectin a day to the patient. So semantics and blah blah aside, Judge Oster either reversed or dismissed or whatever the original action of 'poor' Judge Howard.

  15. #12990
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Keep Tacoma Feared
    Posts
    2,663
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    In other words, because Oster says as a first principle the court should not medicate or legislate from the bench, it's far more likely he would not have ruled the same way as Judge Howard.
    I disagree. Remember, there was no evidence in front of Judge Howard except what was presented by the plaintiff. A similar situation occurs in requests for domestic violence protection orders. To get a protection order, the plaintiff fills out a form saying what bad things the defendant did or is going to do and signs it under penalty of perjury. The judge reads that form and if it meets the requirement of the law, the judge issues a temporary order that automatically expires in, say, 14 days. The judge grants this temporary order without ever hearing any evidence from the defendant/domestic violence bad guy (because the plaintiff is making this request themselves, and has no legal duty to inform the defendant of the hearing at this stage). At a typical docket, the judge may here 10 to 30 of these requests and judges definitely errors on the side of granting the plaintiff's request, no matter how bs their claims may sound. Then, in 14 days, there is a "full hearing" where for the first time the defendant gets a chance to counter the plaintiff's claims. This second, full hearing is the important hearing where the court is considering all the evidence and making a ruling that will last much longer than 14 days.

    The point being, at the first, emergency hearing, when there is very little evidence before the court, the court errors on siding with the plaintiff. The court wants to keep the status quo, and in the ivermectin case, the status quo is giving the guy the drug so his wife can't claim the court and hospital killed him. Then, at the full hearing 14 days later, when both sides now have have had time to make their case, the court can make a ruling based on the full facts, without defaulting for the plaintiff. This system works because what's the harm of giving the guy ivermectin for 14 days just like what's the harm of issuing a protection order for 14 days even if, in reality, the plaintiff hasn't met the burden? Again, the important hearing is the second, non-emergency, full hearing.

    Judge Oster's ruling did a great job of explaining everything in the case and he definitely made a point of trying to explain Judge Howard's previous ruling. My guess is Judge Howard foolishly didn't realize his initial two page ruling was going to make international news, and he probably should have taken time to give a more full explanation of the ruling. But judges typically don't even draft the orders they sign. They make the prevailing party draft it and if the other side has no objections, the judge signs it, sometimes without really reading it. Judges, particularly trial court level judges like we have here, are actually busy. They are the ER doctors of the court system. In the trenches so to speak.

  16. #12991
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    3,365
    While you're entitled to your opinion, Judge Oster clearly says even though neither party addressed the issue, let alone presented evidence, the court should not medicate or legislate from the bench. That's his written opinion. It's not unreasonable to think he would have applied the same reasoning initially too.

  17. #12992
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Keep Tacoma Feared
    Posts
    2,663
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    In response to the original judge's emergency order the hospital administered 30mg of ivermectin a day to the patient. So semantics and blah blah aside, Judge Oster either reversed or dismissed or whatever the original action of 'poor' Judge Howard.
    That's not correct. The original decision has no bearing on the result of the second hearing. A judge can rule one way on the first hearing, and then rule a different way on the second hearing, and they are not reversing themselves. The original order automatically expired. There is no dismissing, there is no reversing. Same for protection order cases I described above.

    I get it that it is easier for the media to just say Judge Oster "reversed" Judge Howard rather than explain the exact procedural history. But the procedural history is important here so Americans have a more accurate view of how their legal system operates. Both Judge Howard and Judge Oster and basically every other attorney would agree with me here.

  18. #12993
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    3,736
    Maybe they should have thought a little more about what they were doing, or just quit, if they didnít realize ordering a hospital to deliver quack cures would be bad.

  19. #12994
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,122
    Quote Originally Posted by altasnob View Post
    That's not correct. The original decision has no bearing on the result of the second hearing. A judge can rule one way on the first hearing, and then rule a different way on the second hearing, and they are not reversing themselves. The original order automatically expired. There is no dismissing, there is no reversing. Same for protection order cases I described above.

    I get it that it is easier for the media to just say Judge Oster "reversed" Judge Howard rather than explain the exact procedural history. But the procedural history is important here so Americans have a more accurate view of how their legal system operates. Both Judge Howard and Judge Oster and basically every other attorney would agree with me here.
    I get that you're interested in the details, but as a layperson I understand that if a court makes a preliminary decision and later reverses it that's still called a reversal and the term is not restricted to appeals. Is that incorrect?

    Does seem kinda weird to be more concerned about the semantic description than the actual impact of each ruling: drug administered/drug stopped.

  20. #12995
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    10,135
    Quote Originally Posted by dunfree View Post
    oh fuck off. The judicial system doesnít want to explain itself to the people who pay their bills. Yeah, itís all a conspiracy

    And fyi, often editors do that shit, not the reporter.
    You and altaslob should get a room and sort this out.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  21. #12996
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    50 miles E of Paradise
    Posts
    11,793
    Name:  5E7A6FFB-E253-4020-A028-0BCDFCAD4789.gif
Views: 210
Size:  250.6 KB
    Check Out Ullr's Mobile Avalanche Safety Tools for iOS and Android
    www.ullrlabs.com

  22. #12997
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    5,674
    LEECHES!!!!!!!! I DEMAND LEECHES!!!!!!
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  23. #12998
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    EWA
    Posts
    20,379
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    LEECHES!!!!!!!! I DEMAND LEECHES!!!!!!
    Better yet how about mercury?
    ďWhen you see something that is not right, not just, not fair, you have a moral obligation to say something. To do something." Rep. John Lewis


    Kindness is a bridge between all people

    Dunkiní Donuts Worker Dances With Customer Who Has Autism

  24. #12999
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    24,551
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    LEECHES!!!!!!!! I DEMAND LEECHES!!!!!!
    Well, we do have Wall Street.
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  25. #13000
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    3,736
    Quote Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn View Post
    You and altaslob should get a room and sort this out.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •