Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by lainga » Thu, May 14, 2020, 5:41 AM UTC

Narkov wrote: post #140

mchusma wrote: post #95

“If a forest fire breaks out, there is no time for debate. Action is needed. The governor could declare an emergency and respond accordingly. But in the case of a pandemic, which lasts month after month, the governor cannot rely on emergency powers indefinitely,” Roggensack wrote for the majority. Refreshing to see some pressure for democracy to resume.

Democracy to resume?? By striking down a democratically elected officials order?

This line of thinking is very close to Bonapartism as interpreted by Napoleon III. I am the democratically elected emperor; my mandate comes from the people having elected me; I may do whatever I deem in the interest of the people who have elected me.

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

#162

Post by bduerst » Thu, May 14, 2020, 5:43 AM UTC

stock_toaster wrote: post #82

Color me unsurprised. Politics in Wisconsin is incredibly broken[1] (and purposefully so). [1]: https://www.wpr.org/us-supreme-court-ruling-effectively-ends...

As someone who grew up in WI, I can say it's disgusting to watch the state get ransacked, from the gerrymandering to the pillaging of the UW system, to the rejection of universal collective bargaining rights and evicting of citizens off their own land for a Foxconn factory. It makes me ashamed.

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

#163

Post by rayiner » Thu, May 14, 2020, 5:44 AM UTC

asabjorn wrote: post #148

rayiner wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sweden benefits from being very moderate in density compared to NYC. Stockholm is comparable in size and density to Washington, DC. The death rate in Stockholm is about 5 times higher than DC.

3,3k has so far died in Sweden and the population is 10 million. I believe 22k has died out of 8.3m in NYC, so NYC seems clearly worse. The strategy was to face more infections short term in favor of quick herd immunity so it’s actually a very positive sign for the strategy that the death rate is not higher than NYC. Considering that the curve has flattened and herd immunity is projected in a couple of weeks, it is n…

NYC is clearly worse, but NYC is also vastly worse than any other place in the US. In terms of density and scale of international travel (or the lack of both), Sweden is more comparable to Maryland or Virginia. Virginia, with 8.5 million people, has had less than 900 deaths. DC, which is only a bit smaller than Stockholm and similar in density, has had just 328 deaths, compared to over 1,200 in Stockholm

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

#164

Post by srj » Thu, May 14, 2020, 5:44 AM UTC

DenisM wrote: post #28

ipsum2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's been ruled on in Jacobson v. Massachusetts: > The Court's decision articulated the view that the freedom of the individual must sometimes be subordinated to the common welfare and is subject to the police power of the state. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

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

The 10th amendment partly exists to award police powers to the states.

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

#165

Post by mgleason_3 » Thu, May 14, 2020, 5:45 AM UTC

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #142

sandworm101 wrote: post #128

This is where culture really matters. Almost every jurisdiction in the western world has faced this issue. Governments are issuing orders that, when push comes to shove, might not be 100% legitimate in the eyes of a court. In most countries that hasn't mattered. People acknowledge the covid problem and are obeying the "orders" despite them, perhaps, not having legal teeth. This requires trust. Like the current politi…

If it makes you feel any better, the lockdowns probably don't matter in the limit. 1) Individual behavior changed prior to the lockdowns (people don't want to die) 2) The government appears generally too incompetent to figure out how to lower R0 low enough to eradicate the virus 3) Since everyone can see that the govt is fucking this up, the marginal utility of hard lockdowns becomes less than the marginal pain. Some…

Hacker News REALLY needs to get rid of the damn down-voting because it's causing HN to become little more than an echo chamber. In its place, people can make use of "reply" to air their viewpoint.

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

#166

Post by bduerst » Thu, May 14, 2020, 5:46 AM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #151

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.

This case is not about covid-19 facts but about constitutional law in Wisconsin. The various legislatures and Congress tend to be jealous of their powers and prerogatives. Executive orders in the U.S. can't have statutory force without supporting statutes.

The solution then is that the legislature flex their powers and prerogatives to solve the covid-19 problem. Have they signalled that they plan on doing that? Or is this a matter of hubris?

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

#167

Post by bduerst » Thu, May 14, 2020, 5:48 AM UTC

elicash wrote: post #153

carlivar wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Declining current deaths. Now, how many deaths long term from economic damage? We don't know. More than zero. This isn't a yes/no decision.

Long-term economic damage is likely to be reduced by containing the pandemic. This isn't either/or.

Exactly. This isn't some false dichotomy between poverty and pandemic, there are a number of options.

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

#168

Post by bduerst » Thu, May 14, 2020, 5:52 AM UTC

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.

Are they issuing orders for internment camps to battle covid 19? Then how is it not a red herring to the question about there being zero precedence for stay-at-home during a pandemic?

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

#169

Post by srj » Thu, May 14, 2020, 5:53 AM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #22

duxup wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>do sheltering rules violate the Bill of Rights? Is an outstanding question about that? There have been other pandemics, government actions to enforce health standards and etc. I don't think they've been ruled to be unconstitutional.

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.

There were absolutely mass closure orders during the 1918 pandemic. Famously a San Francisco official shot someone for refusing to wear a mask.

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

#170

Post by cryptonector » Thu, May 14, 2020, 5:55 AM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #166

cryptonector wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This case is not about covid-19 facts but about constitutional law in Wisconsin. The various legislatures and Congress tend to be jealous of their powers and prerogatives. Executive orders in the U.S. can't have statutory force without supporting statutes.

The solution then is that the legislature flex their powers and prerogatives to solve the covid-19 problem. Have they signalled that they plan on doing that? Or is this a matter of hubris?

They can. They can also decide not to. It is their prerogative. If they don't pass the laws you want and disaster ensues, well, maybe Congress can quarantine the entire State. There is plenty of recourse.

EDIT: And what about South Dakota, which never shutdown? Or Georgia, which has re-opened? Or Texas, which is re-opening? What is so special about Wisconsin?