Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses

jsonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 604 posts

Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses

#81

Post by ars »

aegis4244 wrote: post #9

The Republicans who brought the lawsuit argue that, in part, continuing the lock down isn't appropriate because deaths from covid19 are going down. They don't connect the declining deaths to being locked down. You would think they would notice.

That is not in the slightest what the Republicans argued.

And if you think it was, please cite where the article says that.

To me it sounded like they argued that now that the urgent emergency condition ended, continuing lock downs need to be done in coordination with the legislature.

Which is very different from what you said.

Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses

#83

Post by hsitz »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #66
duxup wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It outright says you can go outside for activities, the type of activity you can do depends, largely on the number of people it would seem. It doesn't mince words about that ...

This strikes me as a dishonest response. The fact that the government graciously grants exceptions doesn't diminish the gravity of the order.

That was not at all a dishonest response. And, no, the exceptions don't diminish the gravity of the order. But the exceptions, which I believe every such order has had, do diminish the severity of the restriction. It is a huge stretch, actually dishonest, to imply that any of these orders prohibited people from leaving their home. Many of them were accompanied with language that in fact encouraged people to get outside to clear their heads. I will eat my hat if you can find a single one that prohibits people from going outside simply to exercise.

Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses

#84

Post by abraham »

vmception wrote: post #4

> The legislature may have buyer's remorse for the breadth of discretion it gave to (the Department of Health Services). But those are the laws it drafted So although every state is different, Wisconsin isn't that different and its Supreme Court did not rule on the law and only on feelings. The majority opinion was across the ideological spectrum, the dissenting opinion was across the ideological spectrum as well. 4-…

There are seven members. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Supreme_Court

Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses

#85

Post by koolba »

dragonwriter wrote: post #72
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quarantine for people who are sick or known to be exposed is definitely legal. But orders for everyone to stay at home are pretty much unprecedented.

> But orders for everyone to stay at home are pretty much unprecedented. Orders prohibiting most gatherings for non-essential purposes (with essential defined by the entity issuing the ruling), shuttering non-essential businesses, etc., very similar to today's shelter-in-place orders were fairly common in the 1918-1919 flu epidemic. They aren't at all unprecedented in the US.

Internment camps and limiting who had the right to vote weren’t unprecedented at that time either. That doesn’t make either acceptable by modern interpretations of the constitution.

Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses

#86

Post by Strilanc »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #16
aegis4244 wrote: post #9

The Republicans who brought the lawsuit argue that, in part, continuing the lock down isn't appropriate because deaths from covid19 are going down. They don't connect the declining deaths to being locked down. You would think they would notice.

The question is, if deaths going down isn't the end condition, what is? Surely there has to be some point soon where the legislature gets to determine the laws of the state again.

Well, for example, deaths being down instead of going down. Get the active cases down to a manageable number, then switch to test and trace while gradually opening up as advocated for in The Hammer and the Dance [1].

1: https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-th...

Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses

#87

Post by s1artibartfast »

arkades wrote: post #69
bobthepanda wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the impression that the federal circuit only really looks at cases impacting federal law. Is there a place to escalate to?

You are correct, there is not. I didn't attend to which circuit had issued the landmark-stupid ruling.

Why is the ruling stupid? It seems like an entirely reasonable check on the power of the governor. The health department and governor can order a binding shelter in place, but the elected state representatives have the power to overrule it.

Shouldn't the majority be able to revoke such an order if they want?

Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses

#88

Post by throwawayjava »

vxNsr wrote: post #78
kumarvvr wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand that when the incumbent has been voted out, why does he/she still have powers to make decisions? Shouldn't they be some sort of stand-in and only take care of routine / bureaucratic tasks? It's a system that is ripe for making these already out people do stuff that is ideological and hardline, while the voters obviously don't want it.

I'm more confused about a court that has an even number of members... what do they do in ties?

In this case, lower court ruling would stand

Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses

#89

Post by aaronbrethorst »

koolba wrote: post #85
dragonwriter wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But orders for everyone to stay at home are pretty much unprecedented. Orders prohibiting most gatherings for non-essential purposes (with essential defined by the entity issuing the ruling), shuttering non-essential businesses, etc., very similar to today's shelter-in-place orders were fairly common in the 1918-1919 flu epidemic. They aren't at all unprecedented in the US.

Internment camps and limiting who had the right to vote weren’t unprecedented at that time either. That doesn’t make either acceptable by modern interpretations of the constitution.

Weird how the same people most interested in limiting who has the right to vote today are the same people who are most interested in overturning these shelter in place orders...

Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses

#90

Post by jdkee »

koolba wrote: post #85
dragonwriter wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But orders for everyone to stay at home are pretty much unprecedented. Orders prohibiting most gatherings for non-essential purposes (with essential defined by the entity issuing the ruling), shuttering non-essential businesses, etc., very similar to today's shelter-in-place orders were fairly common in the 1918-1919 flu epidemic. They aren't at all unprecedented in the US.

Internment camps and limiting who had the right to vote weren’t unprecedented at that time either. That doesn’t make either acceptable by modern interpretations of the constitution.

Care to offer a citation for your claim?
Post reply on HN