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

21–30 of 604 posts

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

#21

Post by duxup »

DenisM wrote: post #15

[...] In the majority opinion, Roggensack determined Health Services Secretary Andrea Palm should have issued regulations through a process known as rulemaking, which gives lawmakers veto power over agency policies. [...] GOP lawmakers who brought the lawsuit have said the legal challenge was necessary to get a seat at the table where Evers and state health officials make decisions about how to respond to the outbrea…

>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.

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

#22

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

duxup wrote: post #21
DenisM wrote: post #15

[...] In the majority opinion, Roggensack determined Health Services Secretary Andrea Palm should have issued regulations through a process known as rulemaking, which gives lawmakers veto power over agency policies. [...] GOP lawmakers who brought the lawsuit have said the legal challenge was necessary to get a seat at the table where Evers and state health officials make decisions about how to respond to the outbrea…

>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.

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

#23

Post by ipsum2 »

DenisM wrote: post #15

[...] In the majority opinion, Roggensack determined Health Services Secretary Andrea Palm should have issued regulations through a process known as rulemaking, which gives lawmakers veto power over agency policies. [...] GOP lawmakers who brought the lawsuit have said the legal challenge was necessary to get a seat at the table where Evers and state health officials make decisions about how to respond to the outbrea…

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

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

#24

Post by TylerE »

arkades wrote: post #6
Grakel wrote: post #3

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

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.

I'd like to think that, but after the GOP's outrageous actions to stack the Supreme Court I can't be sure the outcome would be any different.

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

#25

Post by DenisM »

duxup wrote: post #21
DenisM wrote: post #15

[...] In the majority opinion, Roggensack determined Health Services Secretary Andrea Palm should have issued regulations through a process known as rulemaking, which gives lawmakers veto power over agency policies. [...] GOP lawmakers who brought the lawsuit have said the legal challenge was necessary to get a seat at the table where Evers and state health officials make decisions about how to respond to the outbrea…

>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.

Yes.

For great many Supreme Court rulings there was an opposite ruling in the past. It used to be that the black did not have rights, the gays could not marry, the women could not vote, and speaking up against war was treason.

Times change.

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

#26

Post by TylerE »

daenz wrote: post #19
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.

>can harm others Can you be more specific? It's the nebulousness of what "can harm" that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Taken to one extreme, there's almost nothing you can do that doesn't potentially harm others. For example, I could leave my stove burner on and burn down the entire apartment building. So many things come with risks to others, and those things are just part of existing in society.

Does the Bill of Rights give the police the right to arrest you for driving drunk?

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

#27

Post by duxup »

DenisM wrote: post #25
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.

Yes. For great many Supreme Court rulings there was an opposite ruling in the past. It used to be that the black did not have rights, the gays could not marry, the women could not vote, and speaking up against war was treason. Times change.

Do you feel like something has changed?

Allowing people to vote and other liberties don't present the obvious yin and yang of freedoms vs public health and etc.

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

#28

Post by DenisM »

ipsum2 wrote: post #23
DenisM wrote: post #15

[...] In the majority opinion, Roggensack determined Health Services Secretary Andrea Palm should have issued regulations through a process known as rulemaking, which gives lawmakers veto power over agency policies. [...] GOP lawmakers who brought the lawsuit have said the legal challenge was necessary to get a seat at the table where Evers and state health officials make decisions about how to respond to the outbrea…

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

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

#29

Post by DenisM »

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.

Hence my question.

I also want to know where are all the other people asking the same question?

Post reply on HN