Jump to content

Midam/USA hockey decision on hockey


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Danner27 said:

Where does it say a single Democrat  changed their opinion or their vote?   And didn’t you say on this thread that this bill wasn’t “thee”  bill as it was all about 2832?  
 

And in the article you posted , I quote from it- “Already, some Democrats have joined Republicans in supporting measures to reverse some of the decisions the governor has made with emergency powers granted him through his COVID-19 disaster declaration.”

Am I missing something or are you just stirring it up to get attention?  

Edited by fafa fohi
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, fafa fohi said:

Where does it say a single Democrat  changed their opinion or their vote?   And didn’t you say on this thread that this bill wasn’t “thee”  bill as it was all about 2832?  
 

And in the article you posted , I quote from it- “Already, some Democrats have joined Republicans in supporting measures to reverse some of the decisions the governor has made with emergency powers granted him through his COVID-19 disaster declaration.”

Am I missing something or are you just stirring it up to get attention?  

The house rep being interviewed, it’s not hard to read between the lines. 2832 is more important for hockey, 2787 paves way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Danner27 said:

The house rep being interviewed, it’s not hard to read between the lines. 2832 is more important for hockey, 2787 paves way. 

So before on this thread it was all about the votes and Dems wouldn’t support 2787.    Dems then voted for it in a bipartisan effort to get it passed.  All facts.  You then backpedaled - again by saying this bill wasn’t important  

Now you are “reading between the lines” while providing an article that doesn’t support your position of Democrat’s changing their position or votes.   Reading between the lines?

You are just a bore that keeps moving the goalposts.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, fafa fohi said:

So before on this thread it was all about the votes and Dems wouldn’t support 2787.    Dems then voted for it in a bipartisan effort to get it passed.  All facts.  You then backpedaled - again by saying this bill wasn’t important  

Now you are “reading between the lines” while providing an article that doesn’t support your position of Democrat’s changing their position or votes.   Reading between the lines?

You are just a bore that keeps moving the goalposts.  

My previous point last week was about dems not supporting 2832 - you mouthed off it was co sponsored by a democrat. As I stated, good luck getting the democrats  to support that bill, it completely goes against wolf. I am pointing out to you now, the democrats are already afraid to use the votes to override wolf on 2787 - PARTY POLITICS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, fafa fohi said:

So before on this thread it was all about the votes and Dems wouldn’t support 2787.    Dems then voted for it in a bipartisan effort to get it passed.  All facts.  You then backpedaled - again by saying this bill wasn’t important  

Now you are “reading between the lines” while providing an article that doesn’t support your position of Democrat’s changing their position or votes.   Reading between the lines?

You are just a bore that keeps moving the goalposts.  

Reading between the lines ? The democrat rep in the article states rethinking their vote to override wolf!  yes read between the lines - party politics! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it shows the continued need for parents to call and remind their reps how important it is to not change their vote. After all, Wolf cannot run for another term, but the people who are voting do have that concern. 

If increased numbers are mostly being traced to college students after schools reopen, it shows that districts are indeed capable of operating safely and there is no reason to think it won't happen with sports. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Novos51 said:

You mean from a board meeting. Please answer the following:

1. Do you have a player at SCIR? If no it’s really not any of your business. If yes move to step 2. 
 

2. Have you requested access to the financial records to see for yourself? If no then why not? Too busy? Easier to post and stir garbage? If yes move to step 3. 
 

3. Have you discovered evidence of malfeasance, corruption, embezzlement, etc?

What are you talking about?  This was in regards to a Tournament Alpha Tournament Company was hosting. All I wanted to know was if they were following the mandates (which I think are silly)!  I wasn't stirring anything! Just a simple question.  I can go on live barn to see how all the other rinks in the area are playing except when they black them out like some rinks are doing. I like to watch games. Don't understand why Alpha does not have live barn.  There are probably 10 or so Organizations that skate out of Alpha why do you pick out SCIR?  Maybe you need to go to Step 4. Reread the full thread and figure it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hockeyisgreat said:

What are you talking about?  This was in regards to a Tournament Alpha Tournament Company was hosting. All I wanted to know was if they were following the mandates (which I think are silly)!  I wasn't stirring anything! Just a simple question.  I can go on live barn to see how all the other rinks in the area are playing except when they black them out like some rinks are doing. I like to watch games. Don't understand why Alpha does not have live barn.  There are probably 10 or so Organizations that skate out of Alpha why do you pick out SCIR?  Maybe you need to go to Step 4. Reread the full thread and figure it out.

I apologize. This showed up on the wrong thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The federal judge was clear about this on Wolf in his findings:

"[T]he record shows that Defendants [Governor and Secretary] view the presence of disease mitigation restrictions upon the citizens of Pennsylvania as a ‘new normal’ and they have no actual plan to return to a state where all restrictions are lifted. It bears repeating; after six months, there is no plan to return to a situation where there are no restrictions imposed upon the people of the Commonwealth.”

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Quinlan2020 said:

You might want to mention who appointed this judge. We can then all decide if this is purely political. I have heard many on here cry politics when it comes other decisions. What about this? Or is the political part one-sided?

It's all political - what about it?  We can all decide how "purely" based on the opinion itself but a lot of the points are important - can an executive unilaterally decide when to lock down private business? With no metrics? With no timeline?  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Quinlan2020 said:

You might want to mention who appointed this judge. We can then all decide if this is purely political. I have heard many on here cry politics when it comes other decisions. What about this? Or is the political part one-sided?

He was appointed by Donald Trump. But that doesn't mean he is wrong. 

@Quinlan2020, I do not doubt your sincerity with respect to COVID-related restrictions. But as @aaaahockeysaid just above me, it's all political. The issues raised by the decision made by this judge are interesting because they relate not to the science of the issue, necessarily, but to the limits on executive power encoded in the Constitutions of both our Commonwealth and the nation. Ignoring these limits is inherently political, too. The biggest issue in politics in the US is our inherent inability to have rational conversations because we can't even talk about the actual issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Danner27 said:

My county beat wolf in federal court, hopefully other counties will now follow.

Based on this decision I don't see how the MidAm and USA Hockey could continue to say that they will not sanction games in Western PA.  Wolf is appealing the decision. I think he would have a real hard time shutting things down because of his mandates at this point.  I wonder what the PAHL and PIHL have to say about this Ruling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, hockeyisgreat said:

Based on this decision I don't see how the MidAm and USA Hockey could continue to say that they will not sanction games in Western PA.  Wolf is appealing the decision. I think he would have a real hard time shutting things down because of his mandates at this point.  I wonder what the PAHL and PIHL have to say about this Ruling?

Has anyone actually read the decision? Are we even sure it has an effect on us?

This is a sincere question. Hilariously, half the news reports I read claimed that the decision does not affect limits on gathering size and half said it vacated the limits. I don't know what to think, other than that journalism is a totally forgotten art in America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lifelongbender said:

He was appointed by Donald Trump. But that doesn't mean he is wrong. 

@Quinlan2020, I do not doubt your sincerity with respect to COVID-related restrictions. But as @aaaahockeysaid just above me, it's all political. The issues raised by the decision made by this judge are interesting because they relate not to the science of the issue, necessarily, but to the limits on executive power encoded in the Constitutions of both our Commonwealth and the nation. Ignoring these limits is inherently political, too. The biggest issue in politics in the US is our inherent inability to have rational conversations because we can't even talk about the actual issues.

Many governors have imposed similar restrictions & closures. Some just waited until the cases & deaths were high enough so they could say it was more justified. There is no way to know for sure when the right time is to impose such restrictions, but by saying they are unlawful, you are basically accusing every governor of a crime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Lifelongbender said:

Has anyone actually read the decision? Are we even sure it has an effect on us?

This is a sincere question. Hilariously, half the news reports I read claimed that the decision does not affect limits on gathering size and half said it vacated the limits. I don't know what to think, other than that journalism is a totally forgotten art in America.

It's a 66 page document. I haven't seen it posted anywhere but what I have read quotes it.  

The judge ruled the limit on gatherings, which is 25 people for indoors and 250 people for outdoors, violates the First Amendment. It was also ruled the 14th Amendment was violated when all non-life-sustaining businesses closed.

That's taken from Courthouse News Service.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My biggest take away from this is as follows:

-A governor, or anyone for that matter, cannot simply go on in perpetuity not involving other branches of government. At some point the other branches needed to be involved. And the lack of effort involving them is clearly demonstrated in the steady veto of bills by the governor.

-It was not a good look to set up a task force to make decisions on behalf of the governor that have no experience medicine. Not to mention to go on to be quoted you did not know that the indoor limit was 25 people.  It demonstrates you are not involved in these decisions that affect people's lives.

-The ruling shows there was never a plan to "open up" or go "green." It was mostly arbitrary.  From the get go essential vs non essential should have been defined. And it clearly shows an over reach by most governors to keep people home.  I don't think CDC ever said "stay home." But yet governors were following the expert opinions and the science. 

 

There are some other disturbing findings in the document. Forget the opinion because he is an appointed trump judge. Just read the facts. They are scary.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Louder for those in the back:

 

"[T]he record shows that Defendants [Governor and Secretary] view the presence of disease mitigation restrictions upon the citizens of Pennsylvania as a ‘new normal’ and they have no actual plan to return to a state where all restrictions are lifted. It bears repeating; after six months, there is no plan to return to a situation where there are no restrictions imposed upon the people of the Commonwealth.”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Quinlan2020 said:

You might want to mention who appointed this judge. We can then all decide if this is purely political. I have heard many on here cry politics when it comes other decisions. What about this? Or is the political part one-sided?

Just stay home. Forever. Shrivel up and.......... well, you know.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...