I guess we’ll see if the US Constitution is a suicide pact.
Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses
41–50 of 604 posts
Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Our society is not lacking in people who are either well-informed or resourceful enough to explore the subject, or both.
Where are they?
I don't think they are dead, or threatened. Did they just agree to stay quiet?
Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses
#43The 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.
> They don't connect the declining deaths to being locked down. You would think they would notice.
Have they said this explicitly?
Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses
#44What we should do is one thing. Saying the government can make us do it is something else entirely.
They can make you pay your taxes, but can't restrict your movements in a disease outbreak. I live in Japan, and the government here also does not have the power to legally lock us down (which is why there are only recommendations here -- luckily most people seem to be following them). It strikes me odd, though. There are so many things that the government can legally make you do, many of which seem much less importan…
It’s more about having your representative government voice the voters concern than anything. Not that this is important or that the government doesn’t have the power to implement this. It’s just the branch of government which has the power to implement is in question.
Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses
#45Earlier 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.
I was under the impression that the federal circuit only really looks at cases impacting federal law. Is there a place to escalate to?
TFA says they are the court of last resort.
Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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...
I think as a general rule a court will never make a ruling on constitutional grounds when a ruling on procedural grounds will suffice.
The natural law argument is I think always one of last resort.
Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses
#47Both 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 distinction drawn between orders and rules. It doesn't matter if it's declared as an order, if it invokes the powers reserved for rules, it's a rule.
- Some reasons the court found it to be a rule: it applies to a general class (all residents), and defines new crimes (non-compliance)
- Criminal penalties can only be invoked for properly-promulgated rules.
- Therefore, it's a rule, not an order.
- Can it be a valid emergency rule? The court cites an example of a forest fire, there's no time for deliberation.
- The end date is ambiguous and this emergency is long-lived, therefore it could be brought for deliberation like a normal rule.
Then there's lots of handwringing about "an unelected official imprisoning whoever she sees fit", which is very handwavey and makes me suspect:
- The emergency rulemaking machinery of Wisconsin is vaguely defined, so there's not a specific rebuttal.
- There might have been some judicial activism here.
Ideally, the court would grant a stay on the enforcement of the decision, to give her time to properly promulgate the rule.
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.
It may be a boneheaded decision, but there's no legal recourse for bad policy correctly followed.
Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Our society is not lacking in people who are either well-informed or resourceful enough to explore the subject, or both. Where are they? I don't think they are dead, or threatened. Did they just agree to stay quiet?
Sorry, I don't follow the question. Where are who?
Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses
#49The 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.
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.
Deaths going down is only one thing that needs to occur.
And, by the way, deaths going down is doing so soooo slowly because we really didn't get the R0 much 1.0. If people had actually locked down PROPERLY, deaths would be dropping much faster.
In addition, you need testing and contact tracers. You also need abundant personal protective equipment in your health providers for if you get a spike.
The problem is that the US federal government squandered 60 days in which it should have been filling those other criteria.
Re: Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can make you pay your taxes, but can't restrict your movements in a disease outbreak. I live in Japan, and the government here also does not have the power to legally lock us down (which is why there are only recommendations here -- luckily most people seem to be following them). It strikes me odd, though. There are so many things that the government can legally make you do, many of which seem much less importan…
It’s more about having your representative government voice the voters concern than anything. Not that this is important or that the government doesn’t have the power to implement this. It’s just the branch of government which has the power to implement is in question.
Yes, the legislature would have to pass a law. But in the US this would be unconstitutional due to the right to assemble.
A good government is a secretary / janitor, not A CEO.