NYJetsFan.com Forums: Judge Blocks Fla.'s New Welfare Drug Testing Law - NYJetsFan.com Forums

Jump to content

Toggle shoutbox NYJETSFAN BANTER

azjetfan Icon : (21 April 2015 - 09:52 AM) He is a good QB and I would love to have him. However IMO our 6 is not good value for us. Not to mention if he hates the idea of LA what is he going to think of NY? Contract situation would have to be worked out prior to trade as well. Extreme long shot to land Rivers. My money says we are more likely to land Brees.
azjetfan Icon : (21 April 2015 - 09:53 AM) which is still a very long shot
Chaos Icon : (21 April 2015 - 10:46 AM) he may just hate ownership. LT's comments yesterday was interesting.
Chaos Icon : (21 April 2015 - 10:47 AM) “I personally don’t think so,” Tomlinson said. “I really think this is a situation where Philip Rivers wants to move on. The reason why I think that and the reason why I feel like that is the Chargers have already approached Philip about doing another contract and he declined it. He doesn’t want anything to do with it; he didn’t even want to talk about another contract with the San Diego Chargers. That tells me that he’s thinking about moving on.”

“You never want to trade your franchise quarterback,” Tomlinson said, “that’s never the case. However, in this situation they might have no choice but to do so because I don’t know if Philip [Rivers] wants to be there anymore. I think he’s lost confidence in the organization. He’s seeing a lot of changes going on and the L.A. thing is valid; him not wanting to go to L.A., that is very valid, I can see that. So no, it doesn’t make sense to move on from Philip because he’s a franchise quarterback and he still has three to four very good years left.”
Chaos Icon : (21 April 2015 - 10:47 AM) missed the LA line. nvm. guess that is a legit concern.
Mr_Jet Icon : (21 April 2015 - 03:57 PM) He doesn't want to play for a franchise based in Los Angeles, but he'd be okay with playing for one based in New York City?
azjetfan Icon : (21 April 2015 - 04:28 PM) That's the point we have all been making.
MikeGangGree... Icon : (21 April 2015 - 07:05 PM) Jets vs colts Monday night week2
MikeGangGree... Icon : (21 April 2015 - 07:09 PM) Jets open at home against the browns
ganggreen2003 Icon : (21 April 2015 - 07:52 PM) Week 5 Bye after the London Game against the Dolphags
NJAzrael71 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 09:17 AM) Rivers is likely going to Tennessee. Would LOVE to have him here but we likely won't make the trade. I'd easily give this year and next year
NJAzrael71 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 09:17 AM) 's first rounder for him
azjetfan Icon : (22 April 2015 - 11:03 AM) IMO that's a steep price. I would swap this years first and a conditional 1st next year. Assuming we make the AFC Championship. That would be a 28-32nd pick. Otherwise a second.
MikeGangGree... Icon : (22 April 2015 - 01:07 PM) Yes 2 1st is a lot
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 01:10 PM) draft is next week, pumped
Chadforpresi... Icon : (22 April 2015 - 03:02 PM) What are thoughts on getting a RB in round 1? McShay's newest mock has us taking Gurley at 6. I don't think we should take him that high, but if we trade down and he's available I'd love to snag him, ACL and all. He's got an unreal skill set that, once healthy, will translate readily to the NFL. We're not getting a QB this year without paying a king's ransom, and unless we pay a ransom for a top guy I say ignore QB. I don't want us to take a Hundley or Petty type in the 2nd or 3rd round when we need other pieces (edge rush, OL)
azjetfan Icon : (22 April 2015 - 03:09 PM) We can probably get Gordon in the second. I would pass at 6. If QB is not available a pass rusher will be. Our biggest needs are QB Pass rusher and Oline.
Jetsfan115 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 03:34 PM) any thourghts on shane ray? i see a lot of mocks have us drafting him
Jetsfan115 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 04:35 PM) last one i seen had us taking cooper, a RB, and hundley for our 1st 3 picks. not thrilled about that
Chadforpresi... Icon : (22 April 2015 - 04:38 PM) I don't like Gordon much. Not much of a receiver or blocker, ball security issues, tries to bounce outside too much, stuffed frequently. Gurley is in a league of his own
Chadforpresi... Icon : (22 April 2015 - 04:39 PM) Ray is pretty highly regarded. I'm betting he, Dupree, and Gregory will be our best options as well as edge rushers at 6, but I think that's too high for any of them
Chadforpresi... Icon : (22 April 2015 - 04:43 PM) Personally love Cooper, I know WR isn't our biggest need but he may be the most NFL ready guy in the Draft. If we stick to the 6th pick and Fowler, Beasley, and Mariota are gone, Cooper is the guy to get. I'd even take him over Beasley
Jetsfan115 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 05:45 PM) i don't mind cooper. decker isn't number 1 IMO and marshall is expensive and getting old
Jetsfan115 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 05:45 PM) and we never draft a WR high
Jetsfan115 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 05:45 PM) but o-line and QB are huge needs. i wouldn't take o-line 6th overall, but i think our 2nd or 3rd should be o-line
Jetsfan115 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 05:46 PM) we need an OLB as well. if we don't land a QB i'd like to see OLB adn O-line with 2 of our top 3 picks
Chadforpresi... Icon : (22 April 2015 - 08:16 PM) I agree on Deck, not a true #1 and he's had a checkered history with injuries. Marshall has 2, maybe 3 productive years left, which is why Cooper is an option
Chadforpresi... Icon : (22 April 2015 - 08:17 PM) And I agree with you on edge rusher & OL being bigger needs, but there really isn't a lineman I'd take at 6
Chadforpresi... Icon : (22 April 2015 - 08:19 PM) So the way I see it, assuming Winston and Mariota are taken when we're at 6, that Fowler and Cooper are our best choices, and I'd be stunned if Fowler drops. I wouldn't be surprised (or upset) if we land Cooper
NJAzrael71 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 08:47 PM) Apparently Tennessee wanted both of Cleveland's #1's and their 2nd rounder to move up to the #2 spot to get Mariota. Still think two 1st rounders are too much for Rivers? He makes us instant contenders and if we make a deep playoff run, it would really be this year's 1st and what equates to basically a 2nd rounder next year.
If not, get Cooper in the 1st and then grab Hundley in the 2nd and O-line in the 3rd.
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 10:05 PM) I wouldn't be upset with Cooper, hes a stud
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 10:06 PM) Not sure about Ray. Dupree is rising on the draft boards, ridiculously athletic for his size
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 10:07 PM) Dupree is 6'4 270 and has a amazing get off and runs a 4.5
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 10:09 PM) Problem is he doesn't have big sack numbers in college, I rather draft a productive guy high
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 10:09 PM) Vic Beasley is insanely athletic as well and was hugely productive in college, good bet is that Beasley will be a 10+ sack guy in the NFL
NJAzrael71 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 10:12 PM) Beasley should be a stud but he gets caught up hand fighting if he doesn't beat his guy quickly. He'll likely end up as an OLB but we'll see
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (22 April 2015 - 10:15 PM) He'd be a good fit in our defense, because we could use that speed guy on the outside
Chadforpresi... Icon : (23 April 2015 - 06:27 AM) I'd love Rivers, but we should be able to get him without paying 2 first rounders
Chadforpresi... Icon : (23 April 2015 - 06:29 AM) Lot of buzz about Dupree going top 10, most mocks I see have us getting either Ray or Dupree at 6. I prefer Dupree, like you said insane athlete for his size
Chadforpresi... Icon : (23 April 2015 - 06:30 AM) I like Beasley as well but I have a strong feeling Washington will snag him. But he is a small dude, it'd be nice if he'd add some bulk (in Clemson reportedly played around 230)
Chaos Icon : (23 April 2015 - 10:11 AM) @ArifHasanNFL

.@LanceZierlein says on http://sports790.com that Shane Ray will need surgery on foot, 5 months recovery. "Could drop out of first"
Chaos Icon : (23 April 2015 - 10:14 AM) this should change up the top 10
Chadforpresi... Icon : (23 April 2015 - 12:16 PM) Damn that's big. If he drops out of round 1 that could be a massive bargain for whoever gets him round 2. Dupree now looks more like the edge rusher we'd get at 6
MikeGangGree... Icon : (24 April 2015 - 09:40 PM) TEH RANGERS
santana Icon : (24 April 2015 - 11:32 PM) TEH WIZ
Resize Shouts Area

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Judge Blocks Fla.'s New Welfare Drug Testing Law The Liberal Pussies Strike Again

#1 User is offline   NJAzrael71 Icon

  • Formerly FlyHi
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,648
  • Joined: 06-August 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 24 October 2011 - 06:15 PM

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.
I will not be forgotten. This is my time to shine. I've got the scars to prove it. Only the strong survive.

When someone annoys u, it takes 42 muscles in ur face 2 frown. BUT, it only takes 4 muscles 2 extend ur arm & b!tch-slap that mother@*?!&! upside the head!!
0

#2 User is offline   NJAzrael71 Icon

  • Formerly FlyHi
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,648
  • Joined: 06-August 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 24 October 2011 - 06:18 PM

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.
I will not be forgotten. This is my time to shine. I've got the scars to prove it. Only the strong survive.

When someone annoys u, it takes 42 muscles in ur face 2 frown. BUT, it only takes 4 muscles 2 extend ur arm & b!tch-slap that mother@*?!&! upside the head!!
0

#3 User is offline   santana Icon

  • I'm batman
  • Icon
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 7,928
  • Joined: 03-June 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington DC
  • Interests:Keeping this place from breaking... and titties.

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 24 October 2011 - 06:45 PM

I didn't know federal judges who uphold the Constitution were liberal pussies
lol
Nyjetsfan.com Jets Fan Forum and Chat
0

#4 User is offline   azjetfan Icon

  • D Coordinator
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,130
  • Joined: 30-March 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheese Land Baby
  • Interests:Football, golf, banking and home improvements

  • NFL Team:

Posted 24 October 2011 - 07:45 PM

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.
Posted Image
0

#5 User is offline   NJAzrael71 Icon

  • Formerly FlyHi
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,648
  • Joined: 06-August 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 24 October 2011 - 09:43 PM

View Postsantana, 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.
I will not be forgotten. This is my time to shine. I've got the scars to prove it. Only the strong survive.

When someone annoys u, it takes 42 muscles in ur face 2 frown. BUT, it only takes 4 muscles 2 extend ur arm & b!tch-slap that mother@*?!&! upside the head!!
0

#6 User is offline   santana Icon

  • I'm batman
  • Icon
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 7,928
  • Joined: 03-June 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington DC
  • Interests:Keeping this place from breaking... and titties.

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 24 October 2011 - 11:08 PM

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?
Nyjetsfan.com Jets Fan Forum and Chat
0

#7 User is offline   Mr_Jet Icon

  • Assistant Head Coach
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,314
  • Joined: 31-March 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth

  • NFL Team:

Posted 25 October 2011 - 12:13 AM

View Postsantana, on 25 October 2011 - 12:08 AM, said:



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.

View PostFlyHiJets, on 01 June 2013 - 08:35 PM, said:

You're the scumbag that thinks everyone should kiss the as$es of a bunch of criminals but I'm a dumbass. Yeah okay douchebag. Go give some illegal wetback or Revis another blowjob. But then again.....don't you live in an entirely different country but yet think you can tell us how to live? Go fvck yourself little boy. You're likely still living with mommy & daddy. Pu$$y.


View Postazjetfan, on 02 July 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

There are a few things I have realized about Mr. Jet over a few topics.

1) He is a racist. By constantly using race as a battling tool.
2) He is an extreme Liberal. If you are on either extreme you are probabaly more wrong than right.
3) He is one of those people who will never admit fault, error or defeat.
4)His life sucks and he takes it out on people who don't share in his views.
0

#8 User is offline   NJAzrael71 Icon

  • Formerly FlyHi
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,648
  • Joined: 06-August 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 25 October 2011 - 08:29 AM

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.
I will not be forgotten. This is my time to shine. I've got the scars to prove it. Only the strong survive.

When someone annoys u, it takes 42 muscles in ur face 2 frown. BUT, it only takes 4 muscles 2 extend ur arm & b!tch-slap that mother@*?!&! upside the head!!
0

#9 User is offline   SecondHandJets Icon

  • Assistant Head Coach
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,489
  • Joined: 28-November 05
  • Gender:Male

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 25 October 2011 - 02:29 PM

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.
0

#10 User is offline   NJAzrael71 Icon

  • Formerly FlyHi
  • Icon
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,648
  • Joined: 06-August 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ

  • NFL Team:

  • MLB:

Posted 25 October 2011 - 04:45 PM

View PostSecondHandJets, 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.
I will not be forgotten. This is my time to shine. I've got the scars to prove it. Only the strong survive.

When someone annoys u, it takes 42 muscles in ur face 2 frown. BUT, it only takes 4 muscles 2 extend ur arm & b!tch-slap that mother@*?!&! upside the head!!
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users