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

31–40 of 604 posts

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

#31

Post by daenz »

TylerE wrote: post #26
daenz wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

It comes across as bad faith to ignore my question and expect me to answer yours. What is the definition of "can harm" that excludes activities like leaving my stove burner on?

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

#32

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

DenisM wrote: post #29
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.

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

There's been widespread misinformation that similar orders were implemented during the Spanish Flu, which I think has defused a lot of the curiosity about it.

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

#33

Post by duxup »

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.

I wonder how many orders actually forced anyone to stay at their home?

Most that I'm thinking of didn't actually force you into your home, business was restricted, large gatherings... but it wasn't a situation where you weren't allowed to go outside. Maybe some did but I can't think of any.

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

#34

Post by Retric »

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.

No they also occurred for the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic which also required people to ware face masks in public.

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

#35

Post by ibejoeb »

duxup wrote: post #17
charred_toast wrote: post #8

Can I get some more down votes, please? This isn't absurd enough yet. You'd have to be a buffoon to not take safety for yourself and others seriously. That being said, it's about time people in positions of power woke-up and smelled the Constitution. Downvote me all you want, it doesn't make you right: "An agency cannot confer on itself the power to dictate the lives of law-abiding individuals as comprehensively as t…

"smelled the Constitution" What constitution do you feel they need to be paying attention to? I have a suspicion that you're thinking of one thing and they were ruling on another.

The decision does not hinge on any constitutional arguments, Wisconsin or USA. It's mostly procedure.

Full text here: https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?cont...

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

#36

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

duxup wrote: post #33
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.

I wonder how many orders actually forced anyone to stay at their home? Most that I'm thinking of didn't actually force you into your home, business was restricted, large gatherings... but it wasn't a situation where you weren't allowed to go outside. Maybe some did but I can't think of any.

I think most of them did. The Wisconsin order certainly doesn't mince words:

> All individuals present within the State of Wisconsin are ordered to stay at home or at their place of residence, with exceptions outlined below.

https://evers.wi.gov/Documents/COVID19/EMO12-SaferAtHome.pdf

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

#37

Post by martimarkov »

noodlesUK wrote: post #30

What is up with this website? I loaded it on my phone, it requested location permission, which I denied, redirected, requested location again, and then crashed.

I don’t even get the text of the article but I suspect it’s because I have adblocker on

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

#38

Post by DenisM »

duxup wrote: post #27
DenisM wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most certainly. All the things I have enumerated have turned around completely.

Most (all?) of these arcane laws were presented in their time as justified curtailing of individual freedoms for the common good. You could not oppose war without going to jail - one could, and did, argue that such any such opposition was detrimental to resolve and ultimately the victory itself, leading to untold casualties. And yet here we are - oppose all you want!

Every oppressive law is introduced with justification of needing to protect the public, but finding the balance is not as simple as saying "yep, this might help in our fight against blah". The balance needs to be found in accordance with the Bill of Rights, in particular the 4th amendment.

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

#39

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

Retric wrote: post #34
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.

No they also occurred for the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic which also required people to ware face masks in public.

You've fallen victim to a widespread disinformation campaign. There were orders to close restaurants, ban public gatherings, etc., but general orders to stay at home were not issued during the Spanish flu. (It is true that many cities required people to wear face masks in public, and I agree that's almost surely constitutional.)

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

#40

Post by mistermann »

TylerE wrote: post #26
daenz wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

I think there is a bit of a difference of opinion and a lack of conclusive evidence (but no shortage of questionable evidence), on the degree of risk involved in various activities involving this pandemic.

Now I'm not marching in the street or anything like that, but the more I'm told we must follow authoritarian orders without significant compelling evidence, while dissenting voices are being censored, the more appealing the idea is to me, just as a matter of principle. Favor force over reason, and you might get the same in return.

Post reply on HN