Topic: Florida Judge Says Welfare Recipients Have More Rights Than Employed Americans

[jpatrickham]

Written on October 25, 2011 by Giacomo

Filed under Business, Constitution, Economics, Finances, Government

 
"The state of Florida recently passed a new law requiring anyone receiving government assistance including welfare, must pass a drug test before receiving the benefits.

Since the law went into effect in mid-July, over 7,000 applicants have taken and passed the drug test, 32 took the test and failed and approximately 1,600 have refused to the test.  Applicants do not have to say why they refused, but their refusal will block them from receiving the government benefits.

Each applicant has to pay $25 to $35 to take the test.  If they pass the test, the state will reimburse them.  If they fail, they tests fees are forfeited and they lose them along with the benefits for a period of one year, unless they pass a second test.  If they fail a second drug test, they become ineligible for assistance for three years.

Not surprisingly, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the new legislation claiming that it was unconstitutional and violated the rights of those receiving government benefits.  They filed the suit on behalf of a single father and Navy veteran who is trying to complete his college education, but refused to take the test.

On Monday, federal judge Mary Scriven issued a temporary block on the Florida law.  In her ruling, she said that the court needs time to determine if the law violates the Constitutional ban on unreasonable search and seizure."

Read more: Florida Judge Says Welfare Recipients Have More Rights Than Employed Americans | Godfather Politics http://godfatherpolitics.com/1689/florida-judge-says-welfare-recipients-have-more-rights-than-employed-americans/#ixzz1bp6gitTu

Planet of the Apes - It's a Madhouse!

[IronDioPriest]

Logic would dictate that if they're going to forbid drug testing as a condition of receiving welfare, then they will have to forbid drug testing as a condition of employment - or permit drug testing in both scenarios. To have a disparity between the two sets of circumstances is not supportable.

[jpatrickham]

Logic would dictate that if they're going to forbid drug testing as a condition of receiving welfare, then they will have to forbid drug testing as a condition of employment - or permit drug testing in both scenarios. To have a disparity between the two sets of circumstances is not supportable.

Unfortunately, Logic in the Liberal Mindset, doesn't compute!

[ToddF]

More and more employers (governments included) are forbidding smoking...as in cigarettes, as a condition of employment, let alone drug use.

[IronDioPriest]

More and more employers (governments included) are forbidding smoking...as in cigarettes, as a condition of employment, let alone drug use.

Right. So... work for your money, and you will be held to an off-hours behavioral standard in order to receive your taxpayer-funded paycheck. Do nothing whatsoever for your money, and there will be no behavioral standard in order to receive your taxpayer-funded paycheck.

People won't stand for this. Especially people in Florida.

[Libertas]

And Mary Moron is a Bush appointee...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Stenson_Scriven

...one of those     compassionate Conservatives!

 

[jpatrickham]

And Mary Moron is a Bush appointee...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Stenson_Scriven

...one of those     compassionate Conservatives!

 

They were mentioning this on O'Reilly last night, and yes I still watch Bill. Anyway, they showed a picture of the good Judge. Let me just say "A Picture Tells A Thousand Words!" She AIN'T no Conservative!

[Libertas]

And Mary Moron is a Bush appointee...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Stenson_Scriven

...one of those    compassionate Conservatives!

 

They were mentioning this on O'Reilly last night, and yes I still watch Bill. Anyway, they showed a picture of the good Judge. Let me just say "A Picture Tells A Thousand Words!" She AIN'T no Conservative!

See what playing nice with demonrats gets ya?  They get to litmus test your selections for the bench but theirs get rubber-stamped and sent along...the libiots have to be laughing their asses off everytime they take on Repub's over nominations!

   cowards!  Another reason why I WILL NOT throw away my votes on the less deserving simply because better than (fill in the blank) is the sole argument!

I've had it with that noise!

[jpatrickham]

And Mary Moron is a Bush appointee...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Stenson_Scriven

...one of those    compassionate Conservatives!

 

They were mentioning this on O'Reilly last night, and yes I still watch Bill. Anyway, they showed a picture of the good Judge. Let me just say "A Picture Tells A Thousand Words!" She AIN'T no Conservative!

See what playing nice with democrats gets ya?  They get to litmus test your selections for the bench but theirs get rubber-stamped and sent along...the libiots have to be laughing their asses off everytime they take on Repub's over nominations!

   cowards!  Another reason why I WILL NOT throw away my votes on the less deserving simply because better than (fill in the blank) is the sole argument!

I've had it with that noise!

Ought to be a Law about appointing a Liberal to anything. Kind of like the fable about the Scorpion crossing the Stream. He saw a Frog, asked the Frog to take him across the Stream. The Frog did, and was promptly bitten by the Scorpion. Sort of like Reagan appointing the Scorpion Sutter, to the Supremes. It will turn around and bite you were the Sun don't shine!

[Libertas]

Yeah.

The frog is a dumbass!

 

[jpatrickham]

Yeah.

The frog is a dumbass!

 

Yea! Probably a Liberal!