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

401–410 of 604 posts

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

#401

Post by toomuchtodo »

rayiner wrote: post #396
techsupporter wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd still much rather live in America and get coronavirus rather than live in China and get black-bagged someday because of my refusal to take authorities seriously. At the risk of potentially misunderstanding what you meant, there's a yawning chasm between "freedom to die from COVID-19 because public health orders are affronts to liberty" and "extra-judicially kidnapped by one's own government." I'd much rather li…

> I'd much rather live in Sweden or Germany Sweden never closed down, and Germany is in the midst of reopening. As to the safety net—there is no evidence that safety net has made a difference. (I’m part, I suspect, because the Us already has a comprehensive safety net for the elderly population that is mainly affected by COVID-19). The death rate in the US, per 100,000 people, is well below that of Sweden. It’s also…

Great comment and analysis.

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

#402

Post by mym1990 »

ericmay wrote: post #337
akhilcacharya wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Demand isn’t going to go up magically because of reopening. I’m not seeing much evidence for pent up demand outside of hair cuts, which are not exactly essential

I'm not sure about that. I'm ready to go to the gym, go out to restaurants, and just yesterday they took the caution tape off of the school playground and lots of kids were there. I don't think demand will immediately return to 100%, but I think quite a few people are itching to get out and spend money and enjoy life. Maybe not in some areas, but most of the country is probably ready to go.

Consumer confidence is being eroded more and more every single day, and the savings rate of an American has almost doubled to 13% in the past 2 months. Purchasing power of an average American has most likely decreased somewhat, if not significantly, given the unemployment numbers. All of those things don’t just bounce back like a rubber band when the country is “ready to go”. It will be years before we get back to the GDP numbers we were seeing pre-Covid and that’s probably considering that everything trends upwards from here on out, which is highly doubtful.

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

#403

Post by mehrdadn »

apostacy wrote: post #389
mehrdadn wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't tell if you're ranting or just upset at all this or at the fact that HNers commenting are on topics that you feel they're disconnected from (though I'm sorry about your family's situation), but your reply is quite incoherent. I can't reply to every point, but I can't even make sense of the fact that you're calling me out for being so certain that reopening proposal comes with a lot of... un certainty in givin…

The cost of the shelter in place order is doing more harm than good. When the dust settles, I am convinced that more people will have died as a result. I'm on pretty solid ground here. The costs of poverty and economic collapse are arguably better researched than pandemics. And it is hard not to be disgusted by the attitude of many people on HN, who are least affected by this. Having some relatives in that part of th…

> When the dust settles, I am convinced that more people will have died as a result. I'm on pretty solid ground here.

> But people here like to sneer at these "stupid rednecks" that are clearly not as smart as us, right?

Wow. You're putting a lot of words in people's mouths.

That's also quite a bit coming from someone who just claimed such confidence in his own prediction of the future. I assume this means you're more of an expert in this than the ones in the government we're all familiar with and who are predicting the opposite?

But in case you're actually interested in what actual experts (not me) think about the whole "minimizing harm" thing, you might enjoy reading/listening to this, which evaluates at what point it's worth shutting down the economy. It might shake your solid ground: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843

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

#404

Post by astrea »

microcolonel wrote: post #370
bitcurious wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But what about the US? If all government is corrupt, if all taxes are sin, if all leaders on the other side are traitors to the cause, the people will never respect those in charge. The people don't obey the "orders" nor follow advice. This is a rather extremist take on the issue. You can be against unlawful orders while still obeying the scientific advisories. Take MA for example, where we have a stay-at-home advi…

Also just anecdotally, here in Ontario people seem to want to avoid catching and spreading the disease, more than to avoid clashing with the law (who can't really tell if you have a legitimate reason to be somewhere anyway); and the people who don't care about one don't care about the other either. For the handful of people I see clearly flaunting the restrictions here, I feel like more often than not they have decen…

> A free person does not take orders from the state, nor from anyone. A free person has a right to weigh advice and conscience on his own terms, and negotiate his externalities with society.

How do you balance that with another person's right to live? If you as a free person decide "F it, I don't want to stay cooped up despite my positive diagnosis." Is that fair to someone you then infect out in public?

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

#405

Post by xamuel »

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?

The order they struck down was an order issued by a non-elected bureaucrat.

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

#406

Post by bluGill »

2rsf wrote: post #334
dtwest wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about we compare Wisconsin to Sweden? The article is about Wisconsin. Wisconsin (pop 5.8 mil, 10.6k cases, 418 deaths). Sweden (pop 10.2 mil, 27.9k cases, 3460 deaths).

How about Oman ? pop 4.829 million, 4,019 cases with only 17 deaths. Or Belgium that does have quarantine rules but still have more cases of deaths. It's not a game, and we don't fully understand how this works so maybe we should stop comparing.

Wisconsin has a large Swedish immigrant population (immigrants 5 generations ago, not first generation), so that rules out genetic factors to a small extent.

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

#407

Post by nonford150 »

mehrdadn wrote: post #346
rubidium wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people I’ve talked to pushing for government to reopen things have lost jobs and businesses... or are about to. Their basic survival needs are being threatened. Show a little more compassion. I recommend talking to some people instead of parroting the pictures you see in the news.

So at the risk of asking a dumb question: why aren't protesters demanding e.g. more economic aid instead of a reopening? It's not like giving money to people in this crisis is a taboo anymore... it was one thing both the Congress and the White House agreed on for once. And it's not like if everything reopens then they're going to be instantly back in business. A lot of people will still stay home anyway. Wouldn't it…

Wanted to reply to your response - the 1200 USD suppliment payment per person MIGHT pay for one months' costs. The US is oging on the third month of shutdown. The only way for many to survive IS to go back to work.

In addition, for the most part, folks in the US want to return to work. The vast majority find pride and comfort in work, even if they bitch about. They know eventually the payouts will come back out of their pocket.

The mixed signals from the CDC and governmental agencies add to the confusion (everything is fine/stay inside until a vaccine is available, don't wear masks/cover up you face once you step outside, etc.) only add to the feeling the government really dosn't have a clue.

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

#408

Post by thatfrenchguy »

rayiner wrote: post #396
techsupporter wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd still much rather live in America and get coronavirus rather than live in China and get black-bagged someday because of my refusal to take authorities seriously. At the risk of potentially misunderstanding what you meant, there's a yawning chasm between "freedom to die from COVID-19 because public health orders are affronts to liberty" and "extra-judicially kidnapped by one's own government." I'd much rather li…

> I'd much rather live in Sweden or Germany Sweden never closed down, and Germany is in the midst of reopening. As to the safety net—there is no evidence that safety net has made a difference. (I’m part, I suspect, because the Us already has a comprehensive safety net for the elderly population that is mainly affected by COVID-19). The death rate in the US, per 100,000 people, is well below that of Sweden. It’s also…

> : in Germany the outside limit on abortions is 12 weeks—shorter than in any US state. (Excepting a few “heartbeat law” states where the laws have not yet taken effect.) But within that period, abortions are generally available. No such compromise is possible in Americ

You seem to forget that in France & Germany, people go to the Netherlands or Spain for abortions after 12 weeks. It’s not a « compromise », it’s just a 1970s law that hasn’t been changed because conservative groups are annoying.

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

#409

Post by xamuel »

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…

>Ideally, the court would grant a stay on the enforcement of the decision, to give her time to properly promulgate the rule.

The ruling explicitly addresses this: the case has been in deliberation for longer than the originally requested stay already. During this time, why has the government not ALREADY promulgated the rule?

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

#410

Post by arkades »

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.

Which this wasn't - this was the executive acting in concert with public health officials, which are empowered under a founding public health statute, making their exercise of power one delineated by the legislature.

Which is literally the court's excuse for the "rulemaking" ruling - that they should have gone through the 12mo+ tradition of regulation-development that legislatively-empowered agencies utilize. Which isn't how public health powers usually work - the public health powers are delineated in empowering statutes and regulations ahead of time, and allow leewey to do things like "order quarantine" within broadly-worded statutes+regs.

Which is why this was phenomenally stupid. Besides ignoring context, this was a ruling that basically boiled down to "agencies cannot exercise the powers developed in the scope of their founding statutes and regulations unless those powers have been very explicitly laid out ahead of time, otherwise, they need to go to rulemaking for every application of their powers." It effectively guts the ability of agencies to do things they are supposed to do, have been doing, and prevents them from acting in time-frames <12months.

Post reply on HN