Latest Headlines
- ‘Major’ Fire Reported At Ascend, Fire Now Out
- Century’s Small Town Christmas Parade Turns Out Small With Four Entries, No Santa
- Sunny, Cool Sunday
- Acres Of Christmas Lights, Hayride, Goats In Pajamas At Run-a-muck Ranch In Bratt
- Home for the Paw-lidays Free Dog, Cat Adoptions At Escambia Shelter
- FDOT Completes $7.5 Million Highway 90 Resurfacing Project
- Going Shopping? A Watchful ECSO Eye Has Your Back
- Tate Aggies Soccer And Basketball Earn Friday Night Wins
- No Serious Injuries In Bratt Rollover Crash
- Escambia County’s First Wawa Store Now Open; Four More Planned
State To Appeal Welfare Recipient Drug Testing Court Order
November 4, 2011
The state filed a brief on Thursday with a federal court saying it will appeal a decision temporarily setting aside a controversial law requiring drug tests for welfare recipients in the latest phase of several legal battles over Gov. Rick Scott and the GOP-dominated Legislature’s policies.
“This policy is intended to help Florida families and is an effective way to ensure that welfare dollars are used for the benefit of children and to help Floridians get back to work and off public assistance,” Scott said in a statement after the filing. “I have no doubt that the law is constitutional, and that it is supported by the great weight of judicial authority.”
But the move outraged opponents of the law, who said the injunction granted by the U.S. District Court Judge Mary Scriven clearly showed that the law crossed the U.S. Constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches. Rep. Cynthia Stafford, who has filed a bill to overturn the policy, said the tests were “mean-spirited, wasteful and unconstitutional” in a statement lambasting the decision to appeal the case.
“What Governor Scott continues to forget is that being poor is not a crime, and the state should not attempt to treat poor Floridians as though they are criminal suspects,” said Stafford, D-Miami.
But supporters of the law, including a think tank that Scriven singled out for what she regarded as flawed research buttressing the state’s claims, hailed the decision.
“Our tax dollars should not be used to fund illegal drug addiction that traps children in unsafe homes,” said Tarren Bragdon, a Scott ally and president and CEO of the Foundation for Government Accountability.
The decision in the case of Luis Lebron, a 35-year-old Orlando resident who applied for benefits in July but refused to take a drug test, fueled what has become an increasingly testy relationship between Scott and the Legislature on one side and state and federal courts on the other.
Since Scott took office in January, lawsuits have also been filed challenging his decisions or laws he signed dealing with high-speed rail, rulemaking by executive branch agencies, prison privatization, pension reform and a proposed constitutional amendment allowing state funds to flow to religious social services, as well as a policy requiring state workers to be tested for drugs.
Courts have ruled against Scott on the privatization plan and the rulemaking case. Scott suspended the drug tests for state employees in the face of that lawsuit, and a state judge hearing the case on the pension overhaul also sounded skeptical of the state’s arguments at a hearing last month. The governor won a suit challenging his ability to essentially cancel a high-speed rail project.
In recent days, Scott has sounded exasperated with the continued legal wrangling over the policies.
“I thought there were three branches of government,” the governor complained to reporters Wednesday. “I thought the legislative branch was supposed to pass the laws and the governor either sign them or not. I didn’t anticipate the judiciary would be making policy decisions, so it’s very disappointing.”
By Brandon Larrabee
The News Service of Florida
Comments
21 Responses to “State To Appeal Welfare Recipient Drug Testing Court Order”
REGARDING:
“In recent days, Scott has sounded exasperated with the continued legal wrangling over the policies”
One wonders sometimes if he thought the governor spoke and everybody else shouted, “YES SIR!!” If so, he’s probably wondering if he got his money’s worth.
He really SHOULD have known legal wrangling comes with the territory.
David sympathetic but amused
It’s a small price to pay for these adults to take care of their children on the tax payers dime. But you know there are a lot who abuse the system in fraudulant ways. Save money for other things and weed the bad ones out!!
REGARDING:
“Rick Scott’s “wife” owns – - – ”
Why are you putting “wife” in quotes? is she only called his wife but really something else?????????
David the confused
Rick Scott’s “wife” owns the company that does these required test. Imagine that!!
If it’s okay to drug test people asking for assistance and the “law” deems it important enough to make people on welfare do so… I say all government and state officials should be drug tested also or get out of office.
You can’t tell me there’s not one state official not on a controlled substance… or a judge not on a controlled substance.
Most of the elite class in state held positions are there today because of illegal drugs, or their great grandfathers bootlegging during prohibition.
This is just one more way to put a noose around the necks of a certain economical class of people, so the state and its officials can subvert the funds to their own causes.
Totalitarian…
Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible….
nuff said.
Requiring people to pass drug tests for welfare is ultimately a useless endeavor. The majority of the time, if someone engages in the use of illicit substances on a regular basis, they more than likely know how to subvert a drug test. It sure tends to be that way in the workforce, why should it be different for people who have nothing better to do with their time than watch TV, surf the web, and leech off the system; especially since those tests more than likely wouldn’t be observed collections.
REGARDING:
” So far, 2% of all those tested came back positive. 2%. Does that sound like a rampant problem to any of you?”
Please consider the prepositional phrase: “of those tested”
You did notice a large number declined to pursue benefits when they were faced with the testing, didn’t you? Maybe they didn’t have the money for the test; maybe they knew the test would disqualify them in the first place.
An interesting question would be why anybody took the test in the first place knowing they would test positive. I knew a kid who tried to go in the Army, knowing they would test him for drug abuse and that he would fail that test. I don’t know why he tried.
Other than that little problem, No, it doesn’t look like many needing help are using drugs.
Economically speaking, if the test cost $50 each — which they don’t — and if the recipients only received $2500 total, the cost benefit ratio would be very close to one. Rough on the children of the drug users who failed but there is a fair chance they wouldn’t benefit from any money paid anyway. DRUGS COME FIRST for many users.
David for perfect systems
and perfect people
Controversial? How so?
We that have jobs and actually work for a living have to submit to drug testing. Our taxes pay for less fortunate or even people that live off the government because they can. I am not saying everyone on welfare is using the system but I can almost assure the majority are. If you can not feed yourself, why would you be so senseless as to bring another being in this world to feed? I think people on welfare should submit to drug testing and also I think they should have to work in the community or go to school and get an education so they can support their family. Our government is too lenient.
Agreeing to submit to drug testing for a job is apples and oranges. It is an agreement between employer and employee; employer has a drug free workplace, employee agrees to work drug free…simple. The way to make sure the agreement is being upheld is to require drug testing.
The US Constitution is to limit the government’s power and to protect us from the government. It is not there to protect us from our employer, per se. Granted there are certain equal opportunity and other employment laws relevant to other situations.
@ Kathy, responsible taxpayers and good citizens are for individual rights; does that not include the right not to have their money confiscated (taxed) and redistributed (in the form of social programs). Especially, if that confiscation and redistribution goes to people who are just leaching off the system? My personal belief is if you want my money, then you jump through my hoops, period. I do not support giving my (or anyone else’s) money to those who should not have it. Drug abusers are not entitled to my money any more than anyone else.
@Huh, if the parents are drug users, then deny them welfare, take the children and put them into responsible homes for proper care. Do not enable people any longer. I’d rather pay for the care of children than for the care of drug abusers.
You shouldn’t have to pee in a cup to get a job, nor should you have to pee in a cup to get state benefits, UNLESS there is probably cause to suspect you might be breaking the law by taking drugs. That’s what the Constitution says. The fact that people are so ready to throw away the Constitutional protections that make this the greatest country in the world out of fear that someone else might be getting something they themselves are not both saddens and amazes me. This law is putting money in Rick Scott’s pocket, for God’s sake. I seem to remember during the campaign Rick Scott said that if he were elected and this law passed, he would divest himself of his interest in Solantec, a chain of walk in clinics making money from this law. In the event, he transferred his share of it to his wife. The man was a crook at Healthsouth, and he’s a crook in Tallahassee, and this is just one of the ways he is attempting to recoup the fifty million of his own money he spent on his campaign. You don’t make that kind of investment without expecting any returns. So far, 2% of all those tested came back positive. 2%. Does that sound like a rampant problem to any of you?
REGARDING:
” when it comes to the poor they must be tested for drugs because why?”
Nobody requires them to be tested for drugs. They just said they wouldn’t give them money unless they tested clean of drugs and would even reimburse them the cost of the test if they did.
I think there’s a difference, the judge’s temporary restraining order disagrees.
David contemplating differences
What Governor Scott continues to forget is that being poor is not a crime, and the state should not attempt to treat poor Floridians as though they are criminal suspects,” said Stafford, D-Miami
Oh! so are you saying if you work for a company you are a criminal, so therefore,
it is ok if they make us pee in a cup.
This woman better have a better argument than that one.
Thanks Governor Scott put this bill through.
I see some are now calling welfare checks “paychecks”. Perhaps they feel they
earn taxpayer support. If these people able to work did work for these “checks” I
would agree. Let them work in some type of community service like Pres.
Obama did for 40 hrs. per week before they receive assistance. Maybe clean
parks, school grounds, or even allow them to be placed on farms to work the
fields. The farmers could contribue to the government assistance program by
supporting these workers. In any event these worthy Americans would feel they
are part of a working America and doing their part
Lets say a mother has kids and she is on drugs , should the kids not have a right to eat? Or suffer because the mother is making mistakes? Its a difficult issue and i believe a study has shown that it costs the state more money to pay for the tests
But let us not forget who owns the testing companies in all of this, Scott stands to get rich by defending this
If we are going to forewarn them about the test, then whats the use. Everybody knows if you call them a few days in advance (welfare recipients) that will give them enough time to get ready for the test. The rich people that owns the drug testing companies are making millions off this idea. “Go figure” Its the same way with the daddies. If the moma don’t know who the daddy is then she gets no check. It is so easy to fix this mess if we would just do the right thing and don’t let race be the deciding factor.
The taxpayers can’t afford to keep paying for these people. They need to become a working part of this picture and not a burden. I been working all my life just so one day I can retire and these people are retired from day one and everything is free to them. This is messed up!!!!!!!!!
Rep. Cynthia Stafford, who has filed a bill to overturn the policy, said the tests were “mean-spirited, wasteful and unconstitutional”.
Well then if that’s the case, were I work they are “mean-spirited, wasteful and unconstitutional”. This is bull crap and it is NOT fair to the working class citizens to have to support LAZY DRUG HEADS! The only reason there is a problem is because they know they will FAIL the test.
does scott and all his cronies want paychecks? have them pee in a cup for their paycheck….better yet, make sure not one drop of money or profit from drug testing go to solantek (scott’s wife’s business that does among other things….drug testing) and see how gung ho the good governor is then about welfare recipients peeing in a cup. beliieve me if there wasnt some personal benefit to this carpetbagger, he wouldnt be on board. disgusting
I have to get drug tested for a job before I can receive a paycheck. What’s the difference? You want a check? Pee in a cup
Perhaps one should increase their knowledge of how the three bodies work. The Federal courts hear cases that may violate federal law. Still have to love that Republicans are for individual rights especially for the wealthy but when it comes to the poor they must be tested for drugs because why?
I agree with you wholeheartedly, David. One question I have, and maybe I missed it, and that question is ‘did the state courts rule’? If so, what was that ruling.
I would think that the state courts ruling on the state constitutionality would be more proper initially before a federal court could rule on it.
I still question the federal court’s jurisdiction over a state matter; except to rule, on appeal, the state’s constitutionality of it’s own laws.
Maybe I’m missing something.
REGARDING GOVERNOR SCOTT’S:
“I thought there were three branches of government, I thought the legislative branch was supposed to pass the laws and the governor either sign them or not. I didn’t anticipate the judiciary would be making policy decisions, so it’s very disappointing.”
Count ‘em up, that’s three: legislative, executive and judicial. Each equal and independent. The legislative is not a rubber stamp and the judiciary is to rule if the law is legal under the Constitution. (An illegal law isn’t a law because the higher law countermands it.)
I don’t even oppose the testing in principle but it would be good if the head of the executive branch could count to three and understood basic Civics.
David for an even smarter governor
and drug free aid recipients