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

111–120 of 604 posts

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

#111

Post by pdonis »

erichocean wrote: post #94
DenisM wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of Civil Rights rulings in force in 1905 were overturned in the century since. See my sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23173737

There weren't any "Civil Rights" rulings (note capital letters) prior to the mid-1960s, as the legislation and legal system supporting it didn't exist prior to that.[0] Modern "Civil Rights" is a parallel legal system in the US that overrides the former Anglo-derived legal system (though both are still on the books) whenever they conflict. That's why you get people on the Right muttering about "muh Constitution" wond…

> Nothing I've written here should be remotely controversial.

I agree it shouldn't be, but apparently it is, given the downvotes you're getting. I've upvoted you to try to compensate a little, for what it's worth.

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

#112

Post by ajmurmann »

pdonis wrote: post #105
organsnyder wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When our actions can harm others, the government absolutely has the right—and the obligation—to step in.

> When our actions can harm others, the government absolutely has the right—and the obligation—to step in. No. When our actions have harmed others, then the government has the right to step in--because we delegated that power to them. But the government does not have the right to step in just because some government official things our actions "can" harm others. That's not their call to make. We are adult human being…

> We make our own choices, and if those choices do harm others, we take the consequences

I am all for this! How can we make this happen? Maybe we put tracing in place and if you left your house for no essential reason and without a mask and infect someone else you get shared with manslaughter? Let's do it!

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

#113

Post by [deleted] »

ajmurmann wrote: post #112
pdonis wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When our actions can harm others, the government absolutely has the right—and the obligation—to step in. No. When our actions have harmed others, then the government has the right to step in--because we delegated that power to them. But the government does not have the right to step in just because some government official things our actions "can" harm others. That's not their call to make. We are adult human being…

> We make our own choices, and if those choices do harm others, we take the consequences I am all for this! How can we make this happen? Maybe we put tracing in place and if you left your house for no essential reason and without a mask and infect someone else you get shared with manslaughter? Let's do it!

[deleted]

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

#114

Post by ajmurmann »

daenz wrote: post #106
djannzjkzxn wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could be charged with crimes (eg. arson, child endangerment, negligent homicide) depending on the scenario in which you left the burner on.

But I wouldn't be preemptively barred from turning my burner on in the first place, which is my point.

In that scenario there also would be an investigation. It would find you left the stove burner on and you might be charged with arsen or similar. If we put tracing in place and if you left your house for no essential reason and without a mask and infect someone else and they die you get charged with manslaughter, that would certainly work. If we can overcome the practical problems and actually enforce this, I think it would be a great practice that I think would make all the freedom over community people happy as well. But is it realistic that we can do this in practice?

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

#115

Post by pdonis »

ajmurmann wrote: post #112
pdonis wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When our actions can harm others, the government absolutely has the right—and the obligation—to step in. No. When our actions have harmed others, then the government has the right to step in--because we delegated that power to them. But the government does not have the right to step in just because some government official things our actions "can" harm others. That's not their call to make. We are adult human being…

> We make our own choices, and if those choices do harm others, we take the consequences I am all for this! How can we make this happen? Maybe we put tracing in place and if you left your house for no essential reason and without a mask and infect someone else you get shared with manslaughter? Let's do it!

> Maybe we put tracing in place and if you left your house for no essential reason and without a mask and infect someone else you get shared with manslaughter?

Who says what counts as "no essential reason"? How do you know whether I infected anyone else? Not everyone without a mask is an asymptomatic COVID-19 carrier.

If you're basically arguing that the government needs to have invasive surveillance and micromanagement powers to ensure that every possible way someone might harm someone else is captured, then no, I don't agree.

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

#116

Post by djsumdog »

pdonis wrote: post #103
arkades wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a couple centuries of common law precedent that the government can compel behavior for public health crises. The state supreme court here grossly violated legal precedent, and will have its ass overturned in a heartbeat if anyone has the time, resources, and will to escalate.

*> government can compel behavior for public health crises You do recognize the difference between "government, acting according to established procedures with proper involvement by all branches of government" and "one single person, acting on emergency authority that was never intended to last this long", right?

Plagues gave way to public health, and some would argue, modern plagues formed the State as we know it today. Of course back then ministries of health burned people alive in their houses, but today, they give us clean water and safe food:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rr9b-HMSS4

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

#117

Post by vorpalhex »

isbjorn16 wrote: post #68
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why all those things need to happen before the Wisconsin legislature is allowed to have a say. The state can still have a stay-at-home order if the legislature thinks it's needed.

Surely the Wisconsin legislature, if it desired to direct these efforts, could muster a plurality of the state legislature to override or overrule the Governor, could they not? If it's truly a case of gubernatorial overreach, it's not like they don't have a wide variety of options at their disposal. I'm hardly a legal scholar, but I have yet to hear of a state that hasn't been able to override a governor's decision m…

The issue is with the invocation of emergency powers which do not usually have an override process thus the need for the judiciary to weigh in.

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

#118

Post by pdonis »

djsumdog wrote: post #116
pdonis wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

*> government can compel behavior for public health crises You do recognize the difference between "government, acting according to established procedures with proper involvement by all branches of government" and "one single person, acting on emergency authority that was never intended to last this long", right?

Plagues gave way to public health, and some would argue, modern plagues formed the State as we know it today. Of course back then ministries of health burned people alive in their houses, but today, they give us clean water and safe food: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rr9b-HMSS4

The ministry of health doesn't give me clean water and safe food. At best, it makes and (to some extent) checks for compliance with regulations about those things. But it doesn't produce them. At least, not in any country that actually has sufficient quantities of either.

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

#119

Post by daenz »

ajmurmann wrote: post #114
daenz wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I wouldn't be preemptively barred from turning my burner on in the first place, which is my point.

In that scenario there also would be an investigation. It would find you left the stove burner on and you might be charged with arsen or similar. If we put tracing in place and if you left your house for no essential reason and without a mask and infect someone else and they die you get charged with manslaughter, that would certainly work. If we can overcome the practical problems and actually enforce this, I think i…

I'm honestly not opposed to the theory, though I think we both agree it is impractical.

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

#120

Post by djsumdog »

mikekchar wrote: post #12
Grakel wrote: post #3

What we should do is one thing. Saying the government can make us do it is something else entirely.

They can make you pay your taxes, but can't restrict your movements in a disease outbreak. I live in Japan, and the government here also does not have the power to legally lock us down (which is why there are only recommendations here -- luckily most people seem to be following them). It strikes me odd, though. There are so many things that the government can legally make you do, many of which seem much less importan…

Like they could suspend rent, mortgages, interest of any kind. In the UK, people get 80% of their pre-layoff wages. In the United States, the Payroll Protection Program ran out in days!

If America is going to close the State, it also has to freeze the economy and give people ideas, goals and hope. The American government, at all levels Federal and State, and failed at doing this to a tragic degree. I wrote more about this: https://battlepenguin.com/politics/this-is-not-a-time-of-hon...

Post reply on HN