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

#171

Post by closeparen » Thu, May 14, 2020, 5:57 AM UTC

wyldfire wrote: post #126

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ultimately: risk. Scientists can model infection and suggest whether it makes sense to continue restrictions or not. In fact, they do just that and executives like Governors consult experts for matters like this one. Risk can go down if: (1) much of the population becomes immune [after vaccination or recovery from infection e.g.], (2) treatments arrive that mitigate the impact of sickness, (3) some novel isolation eq…

The presence of risk doesn't short-circuit checks and balances. Governments manage risk all the time.

Emergency powers are for emergencies. It is no longer hour four in the incident command tent with a map and radio. It has been, and it may be again. But the steady state "waiting for a vaccine" stage is not that.

The normal mechanisms of government are logistically feasible on the time scale you're talking about, which is years. I hope they will listen to the experts. It worries me deeply that they seem not to be headed that way. But "I disagree with the legislature" is tautologically not a justification for emergency powers in a democracy.

Testing and contact tracing are not novel.

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

#172

Post by bosswipe » Thu, May 14, 2020, 5:58 AM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #136

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…

Nonsense. You say that as if the 50 States' legislatures have been wiped out by covid-19 and can't convene (or be convened, as the case may be) and pass laws. In the U.S. executive orders simply don't and can't have the force of law without the support of statutory law, not relative to civilians[0]. If you want a law, it needs to be passed as a statute by the appropriate legislature and must become law via all the us…

Wisconsin's legislature passed a law that gives the Department of Health the authority to issue orders in the face of a public health emergency. It is because of extreme partisanship that the extremely partisan Wisconsin court has now struck down that law in a blatant act of judicial activism to get the political result they wanted.

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

#173

Post by Pfhreak » Thu, May 14, 2020, 5:59 AM UTC

jdkee wrote: post #90

koolba wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That there were internment camps in the US? There's a long history of moving first people into concentration camps in the US, and FDR moved Japanese Americans to concentration camps during WW2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066

There are more recent examples as well from America that house immigrants and prisoners from the Middle East.

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

#174

Post by bduerst » Thu, May 14, 2020, 6:00 AM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #170

bduerst wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>They can.

Which doesn't answer the question if they have. This isn't some partisan bill but a force of nature, and if they are flexing their powers for the sake of posturing then more Wisconsin citizens will die if there isn't a plan presented by the "powers and perogatives" of legislature.

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

#175

Post by AbrahamParangi » Thu, May 14, 2020, 6:00 AM UTC

mgleason_3 wrote: post #165

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a lockdowns-are-destroying-America echo chamber and a republicans-are-killing-people echo chamber. These are probably both mostly wrong, but on the plus side things must be getting better because we're back to tribalism.

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

#176

Post by mullingitover » Thu, May 14, 2020, 6:00 AM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #154

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.

Yes, but there's much less support for Executives acting alone. We have a republican form of government where only the legislative branch can pass criminal statutes. In this case the Wisconsin Legislature sued to preserve its powers and prerogatives, as well it should. That does not mean that it won't be amenable to passing supporting statutes.

> Yes, but there's much less support for Executives acting alone.

The whole point of having an executive is for a single person to act alone and decisively, especially in times of crisis. In the midst of an emergency is not the time for legislative subcommittees to endlessly debate.

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

#177

Post by Digory » Thu, May 14, 2020, 6:01 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?

Democratically elected to enforce the laws, not make them, except in truly limited circumstances.

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

#178

Post by jb775 » Thu, May 14, 2020, 6:02 AM UTC

tfehring wrote: post #150

jb775 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That argument loses steam when you find out the 1 in 400 got hit by a bus and the hospital flagged it as a covid death because that person tested positive on a previous covid test. Listen to the Joe Rogan podcast from last week w/ Elon Musk, he agrees with my statement. EDIT: Is it just me or is HN becoming more and more of an echo chamber where people downvote anything that goes against their own politics and yet th…

The baseline mortality rate for an 80 year old is about 0.5% per month. The mortality rate for an 80 year old with coronavirus is about 15%, with nearly all deaths occurring within a month. So treating all deaths in coronavirus patients as being caused by coronavirus would only overstate the true case fatality rate by 3% or so. The ratio is similar for younger ages. Not sure why Joe Rogan or Elon Musk’s opinion would…

The glaring omission here is that this 80 year old with coronavirus could have had stage IV cancer, and pneumonia, and the Bubonic plague, but the official cause of death is being considered "Covid". And considering the 80 year old is probably broke at this point of their medical journey, the hospitals have the option to either get paid nothing, or can claim yet another Covid death so they get the $13k-$39k per-patient payment. Lump this death into the Covid death tally, the media goes crazy (to attract eyes and sell ads, among other nefarious reasons), we are all a little worse off, and the loop continues.

And Elon Musk's opinion always matters.

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

#179

Post by nelaboras » Thu, May 14, 2020, 6:04 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…

That's just an irrational position. Of course it matters as now companies can tell workers to come or be fired. All irresponsible people can go out, spread the virus further, overwhelm healthcare and kill thousands more.

And the way it is done just showd how the US is going bananas:

> Republicans who brought the lawsuit had asked the justices to side with them but to stay their ruling for about a week so legislators and Evers could work out a new plan to deal with the pandemic.

> The justices declined to do that and had their ruling take effect immediately. ...

> With no COVID-19 policies in place, bars, restaurants and concert halls are allowed to reopen — unless local officials implement their own restrictions. That raises the prospect of a patchwork of policies, with rules varying significantly from one county to the next.

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

#180

Post by avs733 » Thu, May 14, 2020, 6:04 AM UTC

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.

And unfortunately, neither is lying about things being 'unprecedented' because you don't like them.

Unprecedented doesn't mean bad..it just means new. The last truly national pandemic we had predated the model T and approximately aligned with the first commercial airboat flight.

Not only is such action not unprecedented, but mislabeling it unprecedented repeatedly is a form of propaganda.