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

51–60 of 604 posts

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

#51

Post by vmception »

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.

uhhh some of those things became constitutional by modifying the constitution, overruling the Supreme Court by making unconstitutional things constitutional

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

#52

Post by sterlind »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #39
Retric wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

What extra powers would you need to order people to stay home, if you can already order them not to assemble publicly?

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

#53

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

bsder wrote: post #49
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't see why all those things need to happen before the Wisconsin legislature is allowed to have a say. The state can still have a stay-at-home order if the legislature thinks it's needed.

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

#54

Post by duxup »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #36
duxup wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It outright says you can go outside for activities, the type of activity you can do depends, largely on the number of people it would seem. It doesn't mince words about that ...

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

#55

Post by zebrafish »

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?

Yes, in the 10th amendment the bill of rights gives the states power to make their own laws. Each state has a law concerning what is considered DUI and the BAC limit for drivers who are considered to be driving legally.

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

#56

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

sterlind wrote: post #52
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

What extra powers would you need to order people to stay home, if you can already order them not to assemble publicly?

A lot of extra powers. Even in normal times there are some restrictions on public gatherings.

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

#57

Post by asabjorn »

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…

> 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.

This assertion needs a citation. If this should be true either hospitalization must be so high that it overwhelms the health system, which was the original justification for the lockdown, or death rate must be high.

The 1.5 week old CDC report [1] shows same hospitalization rate as the flu for the vulnerable 65+ population, and less for the vulnerable Stanford study [2] shows same death rate as flu.

At this point most states have partially reopened [3] and we are not seeing a surge in COVID cases.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/pdf/cov... [2] https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/04/24/study-challenges-report... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/states-reopen-ma...

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

#58

Post by zebrafish »

Grakel wrote: post #50
zebrafish wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Seems like there is a consensus in this thread that shelter in place is legal, though stay at home may not be.

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

#59

Post by Retric »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #39
Retric wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Uhh, people are still allowed to go outside. The so called ‘stay at home orders’ are just using that name.

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

#60

Post by duxup »

zaroth wrote: post #46
ibejoeb wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it is just how you ask questions too.

If (not debating the one in Wisc here just generally) a government tries to enforce a power they don't have or didn't go through the actual process to use it ... there's not much sense in debating it's constitutionality as that's sort of moot as the context is all lost at that point.

I imagine if you didn't stop there it would just be constitutional precedent setting left and right for things you didn't need to do that for.

Granted there are exceptions, I have seen decisions in extreme cases where the decision does say "even if you had gone through the process... you probably still couldn't do that".

Post reply on HN