reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @scottyd121

@scottyd121 - Scott Davison

🧵HUGE NEWS, but important nuance. The CA Sup Ct didn't "rule" that schools can't mandate vaccines - they refused to let sore losers like @DrPanMD CHEAT the legal system by "depublishing" the case. Why does this matter? Well, Covid mandates could have ended in 2021! 🤯 1/9

@scottyd121 - Scott Davison

When @sdschools lost on appeal, the normal legal remedy is to appeal to the Cal Sup Ct and have the issues decided on the merits after a full hearing. But if your arguments are sure losers and you're still bitter, you don't appeal...you DEPUBLISH. 2/9 https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/education/story/2022-11-22/san-diego-unified-covid-vaccine-mandate-appeals-court

San Diego Unified's COVID-19 vaccine mandate gets struck down in court — again An appeals court agreed that only the state can create vaccine requirements for school attendance, not school districts sandiegouniontribune.com

@scottyd121 - Scott Davison

"Depublishing" means the decision only applies to the parties involved in the case and can't be cited as legal precedent and applied to anyone else. What good is a court decision if it can't be cited as precedent? As explained below...worthless. 3/9 https://libguides.law.ucla.edu/depublication

LibGuides: Depublication of California Court of Appeal Decisions: Rules for Publishing and Citing to Appellate Cases This guide provides pertinent information regarding the rules for publication of appellate court opinions as well as information on how to determine whether a particular appellate case can be cited as legal authority. libguides.law.ucla.edu

@scottyd121 - Scott Davison

Which is exactly why @DrPanMD and two Covid-obsessed charter schools petitioned to have it "depublished." They couldn't win on the merits, but depublishing would allow other science-denying, politically-motivated schools like @ghctk12 to keep mandating the covid vax. 4/9

@scottyd121 - Scott Davison

"Depublishing" essentially allows others to cheat and avoid the true legal implications of the court's decision - in this case, that schools can't create their own vax mandates. So how could this have ended the Covid mandates in 2021? Let's go back in time... 5/9

@scottyd121 - Scott Davison

A CA Appeals Ct in 2003 ruled that Gov Davis "abused his discretion" by refusing to end a State of Emergency when the emergency no longer existed. In Aug 2021, Gov. Newsom admitted in court that the Covid emergency no longer existed, but didn't end the State of Emergency... 6/9

@scottyd121 - Scott Davison

Abuse of discretion! No brainer! Many lawsuits were filed against Newsom to end the State of Emergency and his many harmful and pointless Covid mandates. Except...the Cal. Sup. Ct. "depublished" the Gray Davis case (renamed for Gov Schwarzenegger) in 2004. So... 7/9

@scottyd121 - Scott Davison

...they all lost. CA judges threw out these challenges, claiming they weren't even permitted to review Newsom's decision as a potential abuse of discretion. ...all b/c the Cal Sup Ct. depublished the 2003 appeal, ensuring Newsom had total, unchecked power in an Emergency. 8/9

@scottyd121 - Scott Davison

Thankfully the Cal. Sup. Ct. didn't make that mistake with the vax mandate. The question is - should they even have this authority? To reverse valid case law and undo years of legal work w/o a substantive hearing on the merits? The implications, in hindsight, are enormous. 9/9

@scottyd121 - Scott Davison

One notable post-script. The State of Emergency in California is finally slated to end this Tuesday, February 28th. The only thing that will change in the entire State of California: @hamill_law will have to update her pinned tweet. https://t.co/c8vGO1uj22