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

191–200 of 604 posts

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

#191

Post by bosswipe »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #186
bosswipe wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> struck down that law Not true, no laws were struck down. They simply overturned Emergency Order 28. DHS can even reissue the order, they just need to submit it to the appropriate legislative committee for approval. At the heart of the lawsuit was a state law governing communicable diseases that says the Department of Health Services "may close schools and forbid public gatherings in schools, churches, and other pla…

Ok, they rewrote the law. The law [1] says "The department may promulgate and enforce rules or issue orders" but the court just said that they cannot issue orders, they can only promulgate rules.

[1] https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/252/02

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

#192

Post by jb775 »

srj wrote: post #159
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…

You're saying coronavirus mortality figures are fabricated by state and hospital personnel, adding it to death certificates when it was not the cause. What's led you to that conclusion?

That isn't what I said. I'm saying that coronavirus is being listed as the primary cause of death in bad-faith.

According to the CDC guidelines[1]: In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID–19 on a death certificate as “probable” or “presumed.”

My conclusion is based on the broadness of that statement alongside the fact that hospitals receive $13k-$39k per Covid death. Plus my wife works at a large hospital and I'm getting the inside-scoop.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf

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

#193

Post by cryptonector »

mullingitover wrote: post #176
cryptonector wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually, no. That would be a dictator. In American constitutional law the Executive has rather limited powers.

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

#194

Post by nelaboras »

sterlind wrote: post #47

Both sides: courts are supposed to apply the law to the facts. Lawyers guide judges in their arguments, and the court weighs each one, resolving conflicts through tests and precedent. Read the text of the decision before bringing politics into it. IANAL, but browsing the text: - The ruling cites the Wisconsin constitution. - Governors can issue emergency orders (and maybe rules?) effective for 150 days. - There's a d…

> 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.

This is ignoring reality in favor of principle||partisan positioning (choose your preference).

Nothing rational or legally sound in throwing the situation into chaos.

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

#195

Post by cryptonector »

bduerst wrote: post #174
cryptonector wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nonsense. See South Dakota, Georgia, etc. If just one State not doing what you think they should be doing spells disaster for the U.S. (and the world), then we've already crossed that Rubicon.

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

#196

Post by nelaboras »

jb775 wrote: post #129
djannzjkzxn wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 in 400 New Yorkers have died from this in the past 2 months. The flu doesn’t do that.

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…

You're not providing any evidence to back up your statement, except the opinions of Rogan and Musk; to my knowledge neither is an expert on health statistics. Could you provide a source to back up this claim?

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

#197

Post by nelaboras »

apostacy wrote: post #100
asabjorn wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the legislature resists, or the court doesn't grant the stay, that sucks, the bars and restaurants will open, people will get sick and die. Or maybe the Republicans will turn out correct and everything is fine. This assertion needs a citation. If this should be true either hospitalization must be so high that it overwhelms the health system, which was the original justification for the lockdown, or death rate mu…

Meanwhile, Sweden never had shelter in place orders, and they did not fare worse than France or Ireland.

But Swedish were self-isolating, companies allowing flexibility, all citizens have affordable access to great quality healthcarez etc. It's a functional country with high trust. The obligation to stay at home is not necessary when society and even economic actors respond reasonably.

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

#198

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

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.

If it helps:

If you have view dead turned on in your privilege you’ll see dead comments.

Also, if a comment is too grey for you to read, clicking the time stamp will ship it in regular black text.

I occasionally vouch for dead comments if they seem reasonable to me, and on occasion that has immediately un-dead them.

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

#199

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

light_hue_1 wrote: post #181
cryptonector wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Everything about the comment above is totally incorrect when it comes to the law in the US. Just to give you a taste of how wrong this is: the case isn't even about an executive order by a governor! It's about the rulemaking of the Secretary of the Department of Health Services. Not only is the parent wrong, the opinion actually goes out of it's way in the first paragraph to say this! "This case is not about Governor…

Law is what should happen, politics is what does happen.

I doubt many in Wisconsin are interested in the constitutional subtleties, just as they're not interested in how the "spontaneous" activism and protests have been coordinated by astroturfing.

The bottom line is that this will be marketed as a blow for individual freedom against oppressive government interference, and that marketing frame will be an expedient and manipulative PR position which will result in many avoidable deaths.

Worse, it will also do very little to keep the economy running, because the real economic problems are going to happen upstream, and states have virtually no influence over what happens there. (Which on its own should be enough to expose the lie that "individual freedom" as a magic fetish against economic catastrophe is even a possibility in this situation.)

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

#200

Post by [deleted] »

bosswipe wrote: post #172
cryptonector wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN