Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order that closed businesses • Hacker News Board

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

#491

Post by apacheCamel » Thu, May 14, 2020, 5:05 PM UTC

leetcrew wrote: post #438

astrea wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

no, it's not fair, but that's the inherent risk of freedom. people might not do what's best for you, or even themselves. under this model, the government actually has to cultivate a position of trust/legitimacy rather than just compelling people to do (or not do) things. it's easy to forget that most people act with consideration and respect towards each other most of the time, whether or not there is a credible thre…

>it's easy to forget that most people act with consideration and respect towards each other most of the time...

I think consideration here is extremely subjective. If what you say is even true, that most people are considerate, what defines considerate here? People think they should leave their shopping carts wherever since that's the job of the cart attendant. Are they considerate because without them, that person may not have a job since all the carts are just pushed back to the store?

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

#492

Post by cryptonector » Thu, May 14, 2020, 5:10 PM UTC

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.

Your view displays no nuance and no understanding of the decision[0], which clearly does not invalidate 252.02 and does not deny the Department of Health the powers it has been granted by the Legislature. All it does is recognize that other parts of Wisconsin code also apply:

- 227.01 and 227.24:

> We conclude that Emergency Order 28 is a rule under the controlling precedent of this court, Citizens for Sensible Zoning, Inc. v. DNR, 90 Wis.2d 804, 280 N.W.2d 702 (1979), and therefore is subject to statutory emergency rulemaking procedures established by the Legislature. Emergency Order 28 is a general order of general application within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §227.01(13), which defines "Rule." Accordingly, the rulemaking procedures of Wis. Stat. §227.24 were required to be followed during the promulgation of Order 28.

- 252.25:

> Furthermore, Wis. Stat. §252.25 required that Emergency Order 28be promulgated using the procedures established by the Legislature for rulemaking if criminal penalties were to follow,as we explain fully below. Because Palm did not follow the law in creating Order 28, there can be no criminal penalties for violations of her order. The procedural requirements of Wis. Stat. ch. 227 must be followed because they safeguard all people.

I.e., Emergency Order 28 is not even necessarily overturned, rather, "there can be no criminal penalties" for violating it. Moreover, rulemaking procedures of chapter 227 can still be engaged and Emergency Order 28 (or a new order) can still come into full force if those procedures are followed.

You are either being ignorant / insufficiently careful (did not read the opinion, did not parse it, did not understand it, did not educate yourself -- one of those) or else you are displaying the "extreme partisanship" that you accuse the Court of. Court opinions that we disagree with, unless they are repugnant like Plessy vs Ferguson, are deserving of a minimum of respect, and even when they are repugnant to you, they may nonetheless be the law of the land for some time, so a more constructive take is to see how to work around a decision you disagree with. In this case the Court not only does not preclude your preferred outcome, but shows you how to get it: follow 227.24 in the process of promulgating the emergency order.

[0] https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?cont...

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

#493

Post by Fjolsvith » Thu, May 14, 2020, 5:12 PM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #391

Press2forEN wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This goes back to the culture point OP made. Many people in the US want to earn a living, not be provided a living.

I don't believe this. In fact I can't even make sense of it. You're saying when families' and people's lives are at stake in the US, they'd legitimately rather risk dying than just getting handed checks that their own leaders approved of practically unanimously during a crisis? Isn't this completely at odds with the sheer demand there has been for the economic aid so far? And also at odds with how politicians have be…

Most people who actually work for a living have probably worked while ill at least once in order to keep the paycheck coming for their family. They do not perceive the "risk of dying" as deadly as you do.

And it's not only about the paycheck/stimulus check. Its also about going out to eat, going to the movies, enjoying life. A stimulus check doesn't compensate for this.

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

#494

Post by rayiner » Thu, May 14, 2020, 5:13 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #481

rayiner wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the American audience: the limits are 12 weeks in France, 14 weeks in Spain, and 24 weeks in the Netherlands. For the European audience: the shortest abortion period that is currently in effect in the US is Mississippi’s at 20 weeks: https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/922-3.jpg . Shorter ones have been proposed but have been stayed pending litigation. Most of the deep south is close to the Netherlands…

In practice, regardless of what that law says, you can't get an abortion in the deep south. There are fewer licensed clinics than there are letters 'i' in Mississippi. Despite what you've listed, there are other laws on the books that make operating one nearly impossible - they can't be located within a mile of a school, they need to have admission powers at a hospital, etc, etc.

Well, that’s a major overstatement. The abortion rate in Mississippi (i.e. abortions performed in the state) was 1,000 per million people. In Germany, there were 1,200 per million. Spain is about twice as high at 2,000 per million. (It’s also not clear that difference can be explained by differences in access. People might be less likely to seek an abortion in a state where 60% of people in Mississippi self-identify as “pro life.”) There are definitely restrictions; I’m just pushing back on your assumption that those restrictions are so effective in practice that “you can’t get an abortion in Mississippi.”

Apart from that, those restrictions are part of my point. Germans have achieved a compromise, involving fairly high paper requirements for getting an abortion—including limiting most abortions to the first trimester and requiring counseling and a waiting period. German state-sponsored health insurance also generally does not cover abortions absent medical necessity. But the other side of the compromise is that, once those requirements are met, the procedure is relatively accessible.

In the US, the German compromise would be unthinkable to both sides. Here, the battleground for the right is laws limiting abortions to six weeks and abusing zoning laws to shut down clinics. The battleground for the left is things like public funding (not universal in Europe), making third trimester abortions a matter of discretionary medical judgment (highly unusual in Europe), and eliminating medical providers’ rights to refuse to perform abortions for conscience or religious reasons (a right that is nearly universal in Europe).

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

#495

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 14, 2020, 5:13 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #481

rayiner wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the American audience: the limits are 12 weeks in France, 14 weeks in Spain, and 24 weeks in the Netherlands. For the European audience: the shortest abortion period that is currently in effect in the US is Mississippi’s at 20 weeks: https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/922-3.jpg . Shorter ones have been proposed but have been stayed pending litigation. Most of the deep south is close to the Netherlands…

In practice, regardless of what that law says, you can't get an abortion in the deep south. There are fewer licensed clinics than there are letters 'i' in Mississippi. Despite what you've listed, there are other laws on the books that make operating one nearly impossible - they can't be located within a mile of a school, they need to have admission powers at a hospital, etc, etc.

[deleted]

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

#496

Post by Fjolsvith » Thu, May 14, 2020, 5:17 PM UTC

unethical_ban wrote: post #444

Press2forEN wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This goes back to the culture point OP made. Many people in the US want to earn a living, not be provided a living.

Many people in the US want to be alive rather than dead. We're not talking perma-welfare for all non-billionaires. I can't recall meeting many people who get substantially more conservative with age, but I do know many who shift more liberal. I believe there is a correlation with open-mindedness.

> I can't recall meeting many people who get substantially more conservative with age, but I do know many who shift more liberal.

You haven't been to a Trump rally and visited with people waiting in line, have you? Lots of people at them have crossed the party lines.

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

#497

Post by apacheCamel » Thu, May 14, 2020, 5:17 PM UTC

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…

>There is no trust because everybody is crazy, and everybody hates each other, and we should give up being one country and disband the union already.

That seems like a mighty big next step and one that many of "not-so-friendly" countries would want the US to take.

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

#498

Post by bosswipe » Thu, May 14, 2020, 5:22 PM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #486

bosswipe wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The Court did not rewrite or invalidate 252.02. The Court held that the order in this case was a "rule" which means that "the rulemaking procedures of 227.24 were required to be followed". There's nothing about that statement that precludes an order like Emergency Order 28 from coming into force provided that its promulgation follows those rulemaking procedures. There is no rewrite. 252.02 does not exist in a vacuum…

> The Court held that the order in this case was a "rule"

252.02 plainly says that DHS can issue orders or rules "The department may promulgate and enforce rules or issue orders". The court said they can only use rules. They made that up.

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

#499

Post by apacheCamel » Thu, May 14, 2020, 5:22 PM UTC

beerandt wrote: post #464

quickthrowman wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

40% of households making under 40k a year have had a job loss since March

Is this an argument for lack of consumer demand? Keeping things shut down isn't going to help these people get back to work.

I think this is an argument for lack of money to be spent since a hefty portion of people have lost their jobs and paychecks don't happen instantaneously and unpaid bills probably come first.

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

#500

Post by 101404 » Thu, May 14, 2020, 5:25 PM UTC

ginko wrote: post #451

101404 wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like here in Germany, it is the ideology of the party that changed (a lot). I've been a Social Democrat for over 30 years, that's why I left the social democratic party here.

But if anything the problem with German Social Democrats (and European left-wing parties in general) is that they've moved too far away from left-wing politics and more towards a neo-liberal financial policy. I don't see how you can call that ultra leftist. For me that would be introducing a planned economy.

That was 20 years ago. They are at a completely different place nowadays.