Florida requires drug testing for welfare starting July 1st.

punisher73

Senior Master
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Messages
3,897
Reaction score
970
The state of Michigan requires it, as do many others:

http://www.michigan.gov/mdcd/0,1607,7-122-1679_1822---,00.html

People who rail against Welfare are commonly unfamiliar with what it is or how it works.

I am very familiar with the program and my experience with it is that it's a joke and just another paper hoop to jump through to get money. Yes, I have known people that really do need/want it and are successful at finding a job and getting money, but again we are talking about the "lifers" that see welfare as a lifestyle. They do just enough to say they are in compliance, but don't really do anything.

I have friends that work in welfare and most of them are VERY disgruntled because of the lifers and their biggest complaint? The people who really need the programs or the help usually don't qualify and don't get what they need. The system is broke, and definately needs to be fixed.
 

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,345
Reaction score
3,966
Location
Michigan
If I have to take and pass said test as a condition of employment, so should someone who is going to get free money.
If 1 is unconstitutional, then both are.

Do you work for the government? I don't recall any federal laws that make drug testing of employees mandatory for private employers who are not government defense contractors.

And let's take it again to its logical conclusion. 45% of the US pays NO taxes at the end of the year. None, zero, zippo. They get government services, though; just like me, and I pay taxes. So let's subject them to drug testing too. I mean everyone who had a net zero tax bill last year. How's about it, Bob?
 

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,345
Reaction score
3,966
Location
Michigan
My point exactly, you have liberal courts that redefine things to make it fit. I remember the case and thought it was a load of bullock then and still do. I would have liked to have seen the issue pushed higher up with the federal statute, and at the very least redefine it to make it pass.

You can disagree all you like; it's the law now.

How many here had to take a drug test for employment? Almost all of the businesses in our city require it, from government positions to factory workers. How is it any different?
Very simple.

Yes, I had to take a drug test for my current employment. My current employer requires it. Not the government. I was not compelled to take the drug test, I did not have to take the job.

Ah, you say, the Welfare recipient doesn't have to take the Welfare either, so what's the difference? The difference is that there is no law saying I must have a job. There is a law stating that if I meet the conditions to receive Welfare, I cannot be denied it. One is a legal entitlement and the other is not.

I did not define Welfare as a right (and later as an entitlement) and I'm not saying it is right. It is, however, the law. And that's what is different between Welfare and voluntary employment.

Consider it this way. Voting is a right. And if we require drug testing in order that a person exercise that right, is that legal?

Some might think it is a good idea, legal or not. But chances are that it would fail the same Fourth Amendment test as the Welfare drug-test law did in Michigan. You cannot deny someone a right (or entitlement) by putting up conditions that infringe on their civil liberties.

I'm not happy about the idea of Welfare as an entitlement; but it is one. That said, we cannot trample the Constitution because we are unhappy that people abuse Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Compensation, Workman's Compensation, Social Security Disability benefits, VA services and payments, military and police and fire medical retirements, and so on. Combat fraud? I'm all for it. Limit the amount of time people can draw certain kinds of benefits? Sounds great to me. Infringe on the rights of citizens because it makes me angry that lazy people abuse Welfare? No, I won't do that.

Constitution first. All other considerations second. There can be no other answer for me. Otherwise, I am a 'fair weather friend' of the Constitution, supporting it when I agree with the outcome and ignoring it otherwise. A liberal court said that drug testing of Welfare recipients infringes on their Fourth Amendment rights? That's the way our system works, whether we agree with the court's decision or not.
 

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,345
Reaction score
3,966
Location
Michigan
I am very familiar with the program and my experience with it is that it's a joke and just another paper hoop to jump through to get money. Yes, I have known people that really do need/want it and are successful at finding a job and getting money, but again we are talking about the "lifers" that see welfare as a lifestyle. They do just enough to say they are in compliance, but don't really do anything.

I have friends that work in welfare and most of them are VERY disgruntled because of the lifers and their biggest complaint? The people who really need the programs or the help usually don't qualify and don't get what they need. The system is broke, and definately needs to be fixed.

http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/05/michigan_house_approves_4-year.html

The House passed legislation Thursday by a 72-36 mostly party line vote that would cap assistance at four years for able-bodied adults with limited exceptions. The bill next goes to the Senate.
Republicans say their bill exempts senior citizens, pregnant mothers, domestic violence victims, adults who are physically or mentally incapacitated and adults with a disabled child at home from an assistance time limit.
Michigan's current law has a similar time limit but it has multiple exceptions. The current law is due to sunset in late September unless it's renewed or changed by lawmakers.

Lifetime caps on Welfare are the rule and not the exception. If you have a problem with people who exploit the loopholes, I can certainly understand that. I do not see how subjecting all who are on Welfare to drug testing and making them pay for it, or putting them on road crews, fixes that problem. And just FYI...even according to the critics of this proposal above say it would affect 12,600 people in Michigan. Not a huge percentage of the state population or even the percentage of people receiving Welfare. We're not talking about a lot of 'lifers' here.

But I sure do know a lot of cops who are retired due to disability nowadays. One I know has a nice boat, a camper, jet skis, but he is 100% disabled after 20 years as a beat cop. However, as he told me, his 40 year retirement would have been a lot less than his 20 year disability pension. Yeah, let's go after those 12,600 Welfare cheats by infringing on everybody's rights. That's the ticket.
 

Blade96

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
2,042
Reaction score
38
Location
Newfoundland, Canada
This sucks. People should be made to use money for what it should be used for? Listen, I use government money, I have a bachelor of arts, but as anyone knows by now, that is not a skill based degree so when you get one you usually have to do something else. I'm trying to decide what skill based program i want to gointo. I applied for jobs but didn't get one. I do live with my parents but i also get some money from the government to help me with expenses. Does that mean i should only have to use it for food and i can't use it to pay for my shotokan karate? Because I do.

Also, what if someone's on drugs? You gonna deny them money so they can't pay for a place to live, what then? You gonna make em live on the street? Oh, thats really gonna help them there, they'll surely get there help there! Right on.

I think people should work towards improving and creating help, programs for addicts instead of this.
 

Sensei Payne

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
594
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville, Kentucky
constitution first. all other considerations second. There can be no other answer for me. Otherwise, i am a 'fair weather friend' of the constitution, supporting it when i agree with the outcome and ignoring it otherwise. A liberal court said that drug testing of welfare recipients infringes on their fourth amendment rights? That's the way our system works, whether we agree with the court's decision or not.


well said!
 
OP
LuckyKBoxer

LuckyKBoxer

Master Black Belt
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
1,390
Reaction score
39
Just following this to its logical conclusion. If the goal of Welfare is to identify and shame them by forcing them to pick up trash by the side of the road like prisoners, we should probably go the extra step of providing them signs to wear so passing motorists know the difference between them and convicts laboring in similar conditions.

I get the concept of wanting to encourage people to get off Welfare. I doubt if forcing them to perform menial public tasks in public view so that they can be 'named and shamed' is going to accomplish that, but I'm sure it makes a lot of angry people very happy.

so what you consider shameful to pick up trash now?
I started taking my kids out once a week and cleaning up some trash in our local area... I guess we should be ashamed.

or is it just manual labor that is shameful to you?
I guess all those hard working immigrants waiting on the corner at home depot should be ashamed that they are willing to work limitless hours a day doing any form of manual labor.. I guess you just support the idea of immigrants and not what they do...

or is it something else you find shameful?
like reason, and logic...
reading your posts and circular logic I swear you would throw the baby out with the bathwater every chance you can get.
 
OP
LuckyKBoxer

LuckyKBoxer

Master Black Belt
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
1,390
Reaction score
39
My point exactly, you have liberal courts that redefine things to make it fit. I remember the case and thought it was a load of bullock then and still do. I would have liked to have seen the issue pushed higher up with the federal statute, and at the very least redefine it to make it pass.

How many here had to take a drug test for employment? Almost all of the businesses in our city require it, from government positions to factory workers. How is it any different?

thats my biggest problem with some of these court decisions. I feel to often that the decisions are made based on personal opinion rather then the law. One needs merely look at any week in the life of the ninth "circus" court and clearly see this to be the case... and their newest inductee into the screw America group... the sister of the head of La Raza...yippeeeeee...
 

Empty Hands

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
4,269
Reaction score
200
Location
Jupiter, FL
If I have to take and pass said test as a condition of employment, so should someone who is going to get free money.
If 1 is unconstitutional, then both are.

I think they both should be unconstitutional, although the courts clearly disagree. When faced with an unconstitutional employer action and constitutional governmental inaction towards those on welfare, the answer isn't to make the government act unconstitutionally. The answer is to make the employers act constitutionally.

Although I know of course that they have been held to act constitutionally. I disagree. The guarantees of the Constitution are meaningless if tyranny can be "legally" put into place by private means.
 

punisher73

Senior Master
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Messages
3,897
Reaction score
970
http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/05/michigan_house_approves_4-year.html



Lifetime caps on Welfare are the rule and not the exception. If you have a problem with people who exploit the loopholes, I can certainly understand that. I do not see how subjecting all who are on Welfare to drug testing and making them pay for it, or putting them on road crews, fixes that problem. And just FYI...even according to the critics of this proposal above say it would affect 12,600 people in Michigan. Not a huge percentage of the state population or even the percentage of people receiving Welfare. We're not talking about a lot of 'lifers' here.

But I sure do know a lot of cops who are retired due to disability nowadays. One I know has a nice boat, a camper, jet skis, but he is 100% disabled after 20 years as a beat cop. However, as he told me, his 40 year retirement would have been a lot less than his 20 year disability pension. Yeah, let's go after those 12,600 Welfare cheats by infringing on everybody's rights. That's the ticket.

Yep, Michigan FINALLY passed those limits. The problem is the "12,000" number. Do you really believe that number? Michigan now needs to redefine "physically disabled". Phantom backpain in a 20 year old? Yep, lifetime welfare. Asthma? yep, lifetime welfare. 4 year old can't read? Yep, learning disability more money!

That's the bigger issue, there is no teeth in the law for defrauding the state when you are caught. Last time I talked with my friend, she said that they are not cut off from service for fraud. They were penalized a percentage of what they got to pay it back, and it came out to about $5 a month.

I don't agree either with your example. Even in our department our supervisors are paying more for their retirement because one of the Sgt's "hurt his back" and got a medical retirement without paying into the program when they got it. They ended up paying alot out of their checks to cover that.

How do you define physically disabled? To what extent? I think we can all find examples we would agree with, such as paralysis. But, what about the phantom 'back pain' and then see them out and about running their own businesses and such. What should happen to them if caught defrauding?
 
OP
LuckyKBoxer

LuckyKBoxer

Master Black Belt
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
1,390
Reaction score
39
Do you work for the government? I don't recall any federal laws that make drug testing of employees mandatory for private employers who are not government defense contractors.

And let's take it again to its logical conclusion. 45% of the US pays NO taxes at the end of the year. None, zero, zippo. They get government services, though; just like me, and I pay taxes. So let's subject them to drug testing too. I mean everyone who had a net zero tax bill last year. How's about it, Bob?

replace this with "where I want it to go"
no true logic, only more of the whole..... do not pay attention to the man behind the curtain.. I am the great and powerful OBAMA!.....ummm no.

the logical conclusion is there is a growing minority of americans who are abusing and leeching money from the rest of us through nefarious means, and welfare programs are programs designed to help those that need help, and are not a right but a conditional gift that require them to meet certian requirements to get it. Drug testing is not an invasion of a persons privacy, they do not have to turn the results in to the government, they only have to submit a positive drug test and be reimbursed for that positive drug test to qualify.

let that soak in for a minute, then tell me how thats an invasion of their rights?
 
OP
LuckyKBoxer

LuckyKBoxer

Master Black Belt
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
1,390
Reaction score
39
This sucks. People should be made to use money for what it should be used for? Listen, I use government money, I have a bachelor of arts, but as anyone knows by now, that is not a skill based degree so when you get one you usually have to do something else. I'm trying to decide what skill based program i want to gointo. I applied for jobs but didn't get one. I do live with my parents but i also get some money from the government to help me with expenses. Does that mean i should only have to use it for food and i can't use it to pay for my shotokan karate? Because I do.

Also, what if someone's on drugs? You gonna deny them money so they can't pay for a place to live, what then? You gonna make em live on the street? Oh, thats really gonna help them there, they'll surely get there help there! Right on.

I think people should work towards improving and creating help, programs for addicts instead of this.

Blade you really do seem like a gentle soul, a genuinely sweet person. Even when people do not agree with you, or adamantly say something/post something you dont like you keep that sweet demeanor, and thats a rare thing in these times, hell probably anytime.
but yes I have to say I do not get it. You have proven you are able to stick to something and earn a degree, you are choosing to not work at this time. You stated yourself you are perfectly able to work, you are just not pursuing it because you dont know what you want to do. I do not feel that this is a valid reason for public assistance of any form. I mean you can literally get a job working a cash register at a gas station, or flipping burgers in a restaurant, or any number of thousands of different jobs while you are pursuing what you really want to do. I also believe that is people want to live outside the law, in this case with drug abuse then yes let them live on the streets if they can not otherwise support themselves. If any other criminal chooses a life of crime then they have three options... go to jail, live outside the law, or clean up and live a lawful life.
I have no pity for those that want to do the crime then whine about the lifestyle.
 

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,345
Reaction score
3,966
Location
Michigan
so what you consider shameful to pick up trash now?

No....

I consider statements about Welfare recipients "smoking Newports" and "watching Maury" to be somewhat indicative of the mindset that thinks picking up trash by the roadside is a suitable use of Welfare recipient's labor. I pictured them out there side-by-side with convicted criminals who currently pick up trash by the roadside in many states, as I am sure it was intended.

I started taking my kids out once a week and cleaning up some trash in our local area... I guess we should be ashamed.

Nothing of the kind.

or is it just manual labor that is shameful to you?

I'd have to be ashamed of myself, then. I started paying taxes and filing income taxes when I was 13 years old, on the labor I did in the cornfields of Illinois, and I haven't missed a year since.

I guess all those hard working immigrants waiting on the corner at home depot should be ashamed that they are willing to work limitless hours a day doing any form of manual labor.. I guess you just support the idea of immigrants and not what they do...

You would guess wrong.

or is it something else you find shameful?

Yes. The statements made in this thread that demonstrate that few complaining about Welfare have any idea how it works, who is entitled to it, how long the entitlement lasts, the fact that Welfare-to-work is the law currently and has been for over a decade, the fact that most states have lifetime caps on Welfare benefits, etc, etc, etc. In other words, I find it shameful how many people have 'Welfare Queen' concepts about those on public assistance, even when I myself am not a huge fan of Welfare.

You want to know what I find shameful? I find it shameful that people have a problem with Welfare, but don't have a problem with Social Security Disability pensions currently being abused by the middle class, or blue-collar middle-class 'disability' pensions for police, fire, and military becoming the norm instead of the exception. Welfare fraud costs us a lot more than Welfare itself - which would include the doctors, lawyers, and judges involved in handing it out, to the tune of billions of dollars per year; those who would remain utterly untouched by any drug testing requirements.

I find it shameful that so many people are willing to toss the Constitution under the bus any time they find it convenient, just so long as the people they dislike are the ones being harmed. I find it shameful that people who profess to love the Constitution wipe their butts with it whenever civil liberties are mentioned in the same breath as illegal immigrants or people on public assistance. I find that shameful.

like reason, and logic...
reading your posts and circular logic I swear you would throw the baby out with the bathwater every chance you can get.

My reason and logic are simple. Don't infringe on the Constitution just because it gives you a result you desire. Want to catch illegal aliens? Fine, great! Just don't infringe on their civil liberties to do so - it infringes on MY liberties too. Want to catch Welfare cheats? Fine, great! Do so! But don't infringe on their civil liberties. Those are MY liberties also. Want to stop drug dealers and drug users? Excellent! Just do it legally.

If my logic is circular, then so is the logic of the courts that found the Welfare drug-testing law in Michigan to be an illegal infringement on the Fourth Amendment. I get that people don't agree with the ruling, but it is the ruling, and it's the law now. Same for the parts of the Arizona immigration law that got tossed. Same with the parts of the Health Care Reform Act that are currently being dismembered - it's all the same. Whether you like the law or don't like the law, support the Constitution. If you're willing to toss it out for the sake of convenience, then your own rights are not worth spit - someday someone will toss out your rights because they don't like you, and to hell with your rights.
 
OP
LuckyKBoxer

LuckyKBoxer

Master Black Belt
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
1,390
Reaction score
39
No....

I consider statements about Welfare recipients "smoking Newports" and "watching Maury" to be somewhat indicative of the mindset that thinks picking up trash by the roadside is a suitable use of Welfare recipient's labor. I pictured them out there side-by-side with convicted criminals who currently pick up trash by the roadside in many states, as I am sure it was intended.



Nothing of the kind.



I'd have to be ashamed of myself, then. I started paying taxes and filing income taxes when I was 13 years old, on the labor I did in the cornfields of Illinois, and I haven't missed a year since.



You would guess wrong.



Yes. The statements made in this thread that demonstrate that few complaining about Welfare have any idea how it works, who is entitled to it, how long the entitlement lasts, the fact that Welfare-to-work is the law currently and has been for over a decade, the fact that most states have lifetime caps on Welfare benefits, etc, etc, etc. In other words, I find it shameful how many people have 'Welfare Queen' concepts about those on public assistance, even when I myself am not a huge fan of Welfare.

You want to know what I find shameful? I find it shameful that people have a problem with Welfare, but don't have a problem with Social Security Disability pensions currently being abused by the middle class, or blue-collar middle-class 'disability' pensions for police, fire, and military becoming the norm instead of the exception. Welfare fraud costs us a lot more than Welfare itself - which would include the doctors, lawyers, and judges involved in handing it out, to the tune of billions of dollars per year; those who would remain utterly untouched by any drug testing requirements.

I find it shameful that so many people are willing to toss the Constitution under the bus any time they find it convenient, just so long as the people they dislike are the ones being harmed. I find it shameful that people who profess to love the Constitution wipe their butts with it whenever civil liberties are mentioned in the same breath as illegal immigrants or people on public assistance. I find that shameful.



My reason and logic are simple. Don't infringe on the Constitution just because it gives you a result you desire. Want to catch illegal aliens? Fine, great! Just don't infringe on their civil liberties to do so - it infringes on MY liberties too. Want to catch Welfare cheats? Fine, great! Do so! But don't infringe on their civil liberties. Those are MY liberties also. Want to stop drug dealers and drug users? Excellent! Just do it legally.

If my logic is circular, then so is the logic of the courts that found the Welfare drug-testing law in Michigan to be an illegal infringement on the Fourth Amendment. I get that people don't agree with the ruling, but it is the ruling, and it's the law now. Same for the parts of the Arizona immigration law that got tossed. Same with the parts of the Health Care Reform Act that are currently being dismembered - it's all the same. Whether you like the law or don't like the law, support the Constitution. If you're willing to toss it out for the sake of convenience, then your own rights are not worth spit - someday someone will toss out your rights because they don't like you, and to hell with your rights.

the problem is ther eis no infringement on the consitution.
people applying do not have to submit a failed drug test. The merely have to submit a positive test and the fees the spent and the cost is reimbursed to them.
how is that an infringement?
there is no unreasonable search and seizure.
there is no violation of their privacy.
they are simply providing proof that they are not on drugs.... drugies can away in privacy and inject another hit or heroin without feeling any the worse about themselves
 

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,345
Reaction score
3,966
Location
Michigan
replace this with "where I want it to go"
no true logic, only more of the whole..... do not pay attention to the man behind the curtain.. I am the great and powerful OBAMA!.....ummm no.

I voted for John McCain.

the logical conclusion is there is a growing minority of americans who are abusing and leeching money from the rest of us through nefarious means, and welfare programs are programs designed to help those that need help, and are not a right but a conditional gift that require them to meet certian requirements to get it. Drug testing is not an invasion of a persons privacy, they do not have to turn the results in to the government, they only have to submit a positive drug test and be reimbursed for that positive drug test to qualify.

The courts have found otherwise.

let that soak in for a minute, then tell me how thats an invasion of their rights?

I don't have to tell you. The courts told you. Marchwinski v Howard, 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court refused to grant cert, so that's where it ended, which makes it binding precedent for the states covered by the 6th federal district. Other courts may find differently, of course. But I think I can say with some certainty that whether you agree or not, it is most definitely an infringement in my neck of the woods.

I found this quote by one of the judges interesting:

In halting the implementation of Michigans drug testing law, U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts ruled that the state's rationale for testing welfare recipients could be used for testing the parents of all children who received Medicaid, State Emergency Relief, educational grants or loans, public education or any other benefit from that State.

And as I said, 45% of our nation pays no net income tax. I guess they get benefits they don't pay for if they drive on our roads or take a leak at a roadside rest stop paid for by the state. I think they should all be given drug tests too, if the basis for testing is receiving 'free services' from the government. Nearly half our nation receives 'free services' from the government; meaning on my tax dime. It's my money - you go pee in a cup now, please.
 

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,345
Reaction score
3,966
Location
Michigan
the problem is ther eis no infringement on the consitution.

Marchwinski v. Howard say you are incorrect.

people applying do not have to submit a failed drug test. The merely have to submit a positive test and the fees the spent and the cost is reimbursed to them.
how is that an infringement?

Marchwinski v. Howard says it is.

there is no unreasonable search and seizure.
there is no violation of their privacy.
they are simply providing proof that they are not on drugs.... drugies can away in privacy and inject another hit or heroin without feeling any the worse about themselves

Marchwinski v. Howard says it is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.

I'm not sure what part of that you're unclear on.
 

Blade96

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
2,042
Reaction score
38
Location
Newfoundland, Canada
Blade you really do seem like a gentle soul, a genuinely sweet person. Even when people do not agree with you, or adamantly say something/post something you dont like you keep that sweet demeanor, and thats a rare thing in these times, hell probably anytime.

Heh. thanks. :) Like my quote in TF profile says, no one here harshed my mellow enough :p

luckyboxer said:
but yes I have to say I do not get it. You have proven you are able to stick to something and earn a degree, you are choosing to not work at this time. You stated yourself you are perfectly able to work, you are just not pursuing it because you dont know what you want to do. I do not feel that this is a valid reason for public assistance of any form.

Actually, I have applied for jobs. I just didn't get them. Last time I applied for one, I asked my then bf, the evil ex i wrote about, to help with the resume, but i didnt realized til after he sabotaged it by making stupid spelling mistakes and lying on it that i was a orange belt when then i was a yellow belt. So of course i didnt get that job. And I have no support from my family, who never wanted me to have a job like other students have had, they say go do the skills something or other and then get a good job. I was just never encouraged to have a job like other students have had.

and no, i'm sorry, i don't believe in throwing drugs addicts or alcohol addicts out on the streets, thats not going to help them clean up, there are no help programs out there on cold park benches at night.
 
OP
LuckyKBoxer

LuckyKBoxer

Master Black Belt
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
1,390
Reaction score
39
Marchwinski v. Howard say you are incorrect.



Marchwinski v. Howard says it is.



Marchwinski v. Howard says it is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.

I'm not sure what part of that you're unclear on.


no that court decision does not make this unconstitutional.
look at it again.

The difference is that the drug test is done by a third party and the results are never given to the government unless the person voluntarily hands the results over. Since they will know that the results are negative they would not have to hand it over and then not have anyone know they are drug users. This is a different approach to the same thing.
besides the court case you mentioned needs to be relooked at anyways since its a lower court decision that only was upheald because when reviewed had a 6-6 tie and therefor nothing was done.
I think that a court challenge on this will come across quite different this time.
 
Top