On Thursday, Judge LaVerdiere issued a one-day order imposing restrictions on Ms. Hickox while he weighed the arguments. But in his order Friday morning, the judge rejected quarantine and commended Ms. Hickox, saying, “We would not be here today unless Respondent generously, kindly and with compassion lent her skills to aid, comfort and care for individuals stricken with a terrible disease. We need to remember as we go through this matter that we owe her and all professionals who give of themselves in this way a debt of gratitude.”
He then cautioned Ms. Hickox not to allow her newfound freedom to spread alarm in the community.
“The court is fully aware of the misconceptions, misinformation, bad science and bad information being spread from shore to shore in our country with respect to Ebola,” the judge said. “The Court is fully aware that people are acting out of fear and that this fear is not entirely rational. However, whether that fear is rational or not, it is present and it is real. She should guide herself accordingly.”
It’s not really reversing his own ruling. He made an interim ruling, valid for a certain period of time, pending his final ruling; far less sensational than you make it sound.
It’s not really reversing his own ruling. He made an interim ruling, valid for a certain period of time, pending his final ruling; far less sensational than you make it sound.
Not trying to make it sensational. The effect is to reverse his ruling: initially okaying the quarantine, then dismissing the quarantine.
It’s not really reversing his own ruling. He made an interim ruling, valid for a certain period of time, pending his final ruling; far less sensational than you make it sound.
Not trying to make it sensational. The effect is to reverse his ruling: initially okaying the quarantine, then dismissing the quarantine.
No. If he actually imposed a 21-day quarantine on Thur, and then changed his mind and let her out on Fri, that would be reversing his initial ruling. But, he did not make an initial ruling. He held his ruling in abeyance until he could weigh the facts. So, your subject line is false and misleading.
I did this all the time when I served as a military magistrate. In high profile cases seeking pre-trial confinement, I would, if warranted, reserve my ruling for a day, then render my decision. I would keep the defendant in holding until I made that decision. If I let the defendant go without pretrial confinement, it was not a reversal of my initial ruling b/c I never made an initial ruling.
Not trying to make it sensational. The effect is to reverse his ruling: initially okaying the quarantine, then dismissing the quarantine.
No, I agree with Sche-zade. It was not a “reversal.” A judge is not going to overturn a government public health-related decision without at least hearing an argument.
Meh. I was happy before you started your thread and am still happy now. I got 3 bags of candy and not a single snot-nosed brat on the visible horizon to beg and steal it from me.
Q: If this woman is so great and kind and loving and really wants to do so much selfless work in erraticating this terrible disease then why is she being such a loud mouthed, bratty bitch about an extra 21 days of “working to keep people safe”?
A: Because her motives were never selfless to begin with.
Q: If this woman is so great and kind and loving and really wants to do so much selfless work in erraticating this terrible disease then why is she being such a loud mouthed, bratty bitch about an extra 21 days of “working to keep people safe”?
A: Because her motives were never selfless to begin with.
Q: If this woman is so great and kind and loving and really wants to do so much selfless work in erraticating this terrible disease then why is she being such a loud mouthed, bratty bitch about an extra 21 days of “working to keep people safe”?
A: Because her motives were never selfless to begin with.