[FlyHiJets]

In yet another show of people being liberal pussies & wanting to give welfare bums free reign again........

Judge blocks Fla.'s new welfare drug testing law


KELLI KENNEDY, Associated Press
MIKE SCHNEIDER, Associated Press


ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — A federal judge temporarily blocked Florida's new law that requires welfare applicants to pass a drug test before receiving benefits on Monday, saying it may violate the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Judge Mary Scriven ruled in response to a lawsuit filed on behalf of a 35-year-old Navy veteran and single father who sought the benefits while finishing his college degree, but refused to take the test. The judge said there was a good chance plaintiff Luis Lebron would succeed in his challenge to the law based on the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from being unfairly searched.

The drug test can reveal a host of private medical facts about the individual, Scriven wrote, adding that she found it "troubling" that the drug tests are not kept confidential like medical records. The results can also be shared with law enforcement officers and a drug abuse hotline.

"This potential interception of positive drug tests by law enforcement implicates a 'far more substantial' invasion of privacy than in ordinary civil drug testing cases," Scriven said.

The judge also said Florida didn't show that the drug testing program meets criteria for exceptions to the Fourth Amendment.

The injunction will stay in place until the judge can hold a full hearing on the matter. She didn't say when that hearing will be scheduled.

More than two-dozen states have also proposed drug-testing recipients of welfare or other government assistance, but Florida was the first state to enact such a law in more than a decade. Should any of those states pass a law and face a court challenge, Scriven's ultimate ruling would likely serve as a legal precedent.

The law's proponents include Gov. Rick Scott, who said during his campaign the measure would save $77 million. It's unclear how he arrived at those figures. A spokesman for the Florida Department of Children and Families deferred all comments to the governor's office.

"Drug testing welfare recipients is just a common-sense way to ensure that welfare dollars are used to help children and get parents back to work," said Jackie Schutz, a spokeswoman for Scott. "The governor obviously disagrees with the decision and he will evaluate his options regarding when to appeal."

Earlier this year, Scott also ordered drug testing of new state workers and spot checks of existing state employees under him. But testing was suspended after the American Civil Liberties Union also challenged that policy in a separate lawsuit.

Nearly 1,600 applicants have refused to take the test since testing began in mid-July, but they aren't required to say why. Thirty-two applicants failed the test and more than 7,000 have passed, according to the Department of Children and Families. The majority of positives were for marijuana.

State officials said Monday that applicants previously denied benefits for testing positive or refusing the test could reapply immediately. The Department of Children and Families will also approve all pending applications that await drug test results.

Supporters had argued applicants skipped the test because they knew they would have tested positive for drugs. Applicants must pay $25 to $35 for the test and are reimbursed by the state if they pass. It's unclear if the state has saved money.

Under the Temporary Assistance For Needy Families program, the state gives $180 a month for one person or $364 for a family of four.

Those who test positive for drugs are ineligible for the cash assistance for one year, though passing a drug course can cut that period in half. If they fail a second time, they are ineligible for three years.

Lebron, who is the sole caretaker of his 4-year-old son, said he's "happy that the judge stood up for me and my rights and said the state can't act without a reason or suspicion."

The ACLU says Florida was the first to enact such a law since Michigan tried more than a decade ago. Michigan's random drug testing program for welfare recipients lasted five weeks in 1999 before it was halted by a judge, kicking off a four-year legal battle that ended with an appeals court ruling it unconstitutional.

___

Kennedy reported from Miami.
Associated Press
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[FlyHiJets]

And now the happy bums can continue to get their free support from the rest of us to buy their drugs. The problem is that these mother fuckers seem to think that welfare is a career and the liberal pussies on the federal courts apparently seem to agree with them. Way to give them something to strive for assholes.

[santana]

I didn't know federal judges who uphold the Constitution were liberal pussies
lol

[azjetfan]

wether you agree or not I think we all saw this coming. All the lawyers had to do was get this in front of a Liberal judge. It will probably stand.

[FlyHiJets]

santana, on 24 October 2011 - 07:45 PM, said:

I didn't know federal judges who uphold the Constitution were liberal pussies
lol

By that way of thinking, it's unconstitutional for jobs to require drug testing too then? it's the same damn thing. There's no constitutional violation in my opinion.

[santana]

Quote

Middle District of Florida

On the recommendation of U.S. Senator Mel Martinez, Scriven was nominated by George W. Bush on July 10, 2008 to a seat vacated by Patricia Fawsett. Scriven was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on September 26, 2008 and received commission on September 30, 2008.[1]

http://judgepedia.or...hp/Mary_Scriven

Quote

Melquíades Rafael Martínez Ruiz, usually known as Mel Martinez (born October 23, 1946), is a former United States Senator from Florida and served as Chairman of the Republican Party from November 2006 until October 19, 2007, the first Latino to serve as chairman of a major party. Previously, Martínez served as the 12th Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President George W. Bush.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Mel_Martinez

liberal much?

[Mr_Jet]

santana, on 25 October 2011 - 12:08 AM, said:

http://judgepedia.or...hp/Mary_Scriven



http://en.wikipedia....ki/Mel_Martinez

liberal much?

You beat me to it Santana.

I love it when people bitch about liberal activist judges and it turns out that judge they're pissed at was appointed by a "conservative" Republican president or governor. Thanks Dubya.

[FlyHiJets]

Just because they're appointed by a moron doesn't mean they're not liberal. Anybody supporting a bunch of lazy ass drug addict bums is a liberal in my opinion. Stop thinking along party lines all the damn time. These are the same scum judges that think illegals should get free everything in this country.

What kind of example are these idiots setting for anyone? They're basically telling the country to not strive to do anything with your life because you can just force everyone else to support you. And yes....you can even use the taxpayer money to get high because we're only going to end up ruling that you can be on welfare for life because it would be "unconstitutional" to deprive you of your right to life, liberty and sponge off the rest of humanity. Sounds pretty liberal to me. They want to "liberate" everyone of their individual responsibility to support themselves and contribute to society in a positive way rather than continue to suck the money from it.

Court views: Real interpretation:
The rich should pay more. Be punished for success.
No drug testing for welfare recipients. I can get high and be a bum for life while having the taxpayers pay for it all!!!
Free education & healthcare for illegals. I don't need to become a citizen because then I will lose all of the freebies.

How is anyone in this country going to want to succeed if they're going to be punished for their success? Where is the incentive for welfare bums to get off their lazy asses and try to be successful in anything if they're only going to have to be punished for success & have to support not only themselves but also the scum illegals? There is no incentive other than personal satisfaction to be successful in this country any more. I'll keep my personal satisfaction while suffering to pay my bills because a bunch of scumbags in black robes say I have to support everyone else. All of the liberal pussies that supports those ideas can go f*** themselves.

[SecondHandJets]

This isn't about welfare recipients or "liberal" judges. This is about "protecting the Constitutional rights" etc etc. It's bullshit but with these things, once precedent is set, it becomes defacto law so whenever a policy comes into effect that could potentially mess up the Bill Of Rights, every legal scholar throws on his twill jacket and reading glasses and starts playing with semantics.

[FlyHiJets]

SecondHandJets, on 25 October 2011 - 03:29 PM, said:

This isn't about welfare recipients or "liberal" judges. This is about "protecting the Constitutional rights" etc etc. It's bullshit but with these things, once precedent is set, it becomes defacto law so whenever a policy comes into effect that could potentially mess up the Bill Of Rights, every legal scholar throws on his twill jacket and reading glasses and starts playing with semantics.

The simple solution to this could be that the welfare application includes a disclaimer indicating that the results could be used against them should they be applying for benefits for a family rather than individual. That removes the precendent and the potential for so-called unlawful search & seizure of criminal evidence. The various welfare agencies are required by law to report any person that is a potential threat to themselves or others. A positive drug test indicates them to be that threat therefore requires the agency to turn over the drug test results. To me, it is not an unlawful search & seizure if the individual is signing the application for benefits knowing that the agency is required to make the results known to law enforcement if there is a positive result. If they did not know that law, that is still not a defense because ignorance of the law is not a defense in any criminal proceeding. The simple addition of the disclaimer removes any "violation" of anyone's constitutional rights. This isn't that difficult of a concept but for some people, common sense easily escapes them.

Nobody is forcing these people to apply for welfare benefits. The problem with welfare is that many people on the system think that welfare is a career opportunity.