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

551–560 of 604 posts

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

#551

Post by microcolonel »

Accujack wrote: post #480
microcolonel wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. This hypothetical "free person" is then also responsible for the results of their actions and for any oversights or vulnerabilities caused by their "free" status. There are very good reasons we allow ourselves to be part of a soci…

> ...they don't understand or identify those benefits, they are entirely unwilling to accept the lack of them which is the case if they're entirely "free".

> ...they want to have their cake and eat it too...

> They usually have an ego that allows them...

Well just because you can think of a hypothetical selfish and entitled person who isn't willing to suffer for liberty, doesn't mean everyone who advocates for freedom is that person, and if anything it makes the case that these people should be brought to put their money where their mouth is.

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

#552

Post by Strilanc »

bagacrap wrote: post #518
Strilanc wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, for example, deaths being down instead of going down. Get the active cases down to a manageable number, then switch to test and trace while gradually opening up as advocated for in The Hammer and the Dance [1]. 1: https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-th...

are the active cases at an unmanageable number though? The hospitals are overstaffed and furloughing workers.

It depends on your overall strategy. If you want everyone to get the disease but at a rate that hospitals can handle, then hospital capacity vs case count will be a very important piece of data for making decisions. If you want to control the cases using test and trace, then you instead care about case count vs test and trace capacity, which is different from your hospital capacity.

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

#553

Post by fennecfoxen »

bosswipe wrote: post #498
cryptonector wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The court said that this, specifically, is a rule, because it introduces new criminal penalties for violating it. There is an emergency rulemaking power available in Wisconsin, but these rules were not submitted in compliance with the statues which authorize them.

The court also said that while there is authorization under other statutes to take "all emergency measures necessary to control communicable diseases," insofar as these statues are used in this way, they violate the state constitution, because this is a fundamentally legislative power given to one (unelected) member of the executive branch. That is not Constitutional in Wisconsin, and the justices write, "In issuing her order, she arrogated unto herself the power to make the law and the power to execute it, excluding the people from the lawmaking process altogether."

A concurrence went on to quote _Ex parte Milligan_, an 1866 case in which civilians were being tried by military tribunals, ostensibly due to the exigencies of the US Civil War, about why this matters: "No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of [the Constitution's] provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism..."

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

#554

Post by aplummer »

dgzl wrote: post #255
aplummer wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true at all. You know people in other western countries are actually significantly more free than in the USA right? New Zealand is widely regarded as the most free country, and they also don’t have coronavirus.

I'd like some source material on your claim about freedoms, and New Zealand is a tiny island, very easy to control.

Here is a well thought out analysis of different attributes tha constitute "free-ness" that breaks down many kind of freedom[1]. Obviously Americans get full marks for "freedom of movement and assembly" but there are other types of freedom. The USA doesn't even break the top 10. If your interest is genuine I recommend further research starting with "why does the USA have the highest incarceration rate in the world", "prison industrial complex", "victims / incarceration by race" (given freedom in the USA is unevenly distributed).

I'm not saying the USA isn't generally a free place (it obviously is and has many good parts), but comparatively it's not the most free.

Also to reply directly to your point about size, Australia and Canada are both higher in the paper I provided, which are (equal sized / slightly smaller) but more sparse, so I don't think size is the issue.

[1] https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/human-freedom-inde...

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

#555

Post by aplummer »

craigsmansion wrote: post #281
dgzl wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like some source material on your claim about freedoms, and New Zealand is a tiny island, very easy to control.

> I'd like some source material on your claim about freedoms Let's start at the bottom then: >> The other countries you speak about have already lost their rights, or never had them to begin with. >and New Zealand is a tiny island, very easy to control What you're saying here is basically: "even if you back it up with source material, I'm going to claim the US is more diverse/different so it doesn't really apply." In…

> In other words, it's US exceptionalism both ways around, that is, circular reasoning. Why should anyone bother to try and have a good faith argument here?

I've assumed good intent with my reply and included size examples of Australia and Canada referring to my linked paper, so I suppose we will find out.

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

#556

Post by cryptonector »

bosswipe wrote: post #538
cryptonector wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying I incorrectly quoted the decision? Did you read the decision?? It says the order is a rule, not that they can only use rules. It described the rationale for why it has to be considered a rule and not an order given the context. It's all quite reasonable.

The decision invents a new law that says that DHS cannot issue an order that applies to the whole state, if it applies to the whole state it has to be a rule. Even though 252.02(04) says "Any rule or order may be made applicable to the whole or any specified part of the state, or to any vessel or other conveyance."

No, this decision does not invent new law (though courts do in fact make law, and it is seen as appropriate for them to do so, both under common law and since Marbury, so inventing new law, had they done so, wouldn't necessarily be innovating). The decision specifically cites the parts of Wisconsin code that apply to rulemaking and why Emergency Order 28 is a rule and not an order. Simply quoting from one part of the Wisconsin code ignoring the other parts that apparently apply (certainly, according to the Wisc. S.C.), is not enough to win an argument.

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

#557

Post by cryptonector »

aw1621107 wrote: post #514
cryptonector wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Constitution clearly sets up a Republican Form of Government for the Federal Government. Clearly, the Republican Guarantee clause's only meaning would be to limit future Amendments' scope if it were only to apply to the Federal Government. But look at more of the Article: | The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasi…

Perhaps I just don't understand something, but I'm still not seeing anything that would imply any restrictions on the type of government a state chooses to implement. To me, the additional clause you showed just says that the federal government shall protect the states against invasions. > The Republican Guarantee is a commitment of the Federal Government to the States about the States. I'm not quite sure where the "…

> To me, the additional clause you showed just says that the federal government shall protect the states against invasions.

What?! How do you see that? The ", and" below is a conjunction, it's joining one commitment and another into a list of commitments made to the States:

| The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; ...

That clearly does not predicate one commitment upon the other. It's just a list of commitments.

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

#558

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #198
mgleason_3 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hacker News REALLY needs to get rid of the damn down-voting because it's causing HN to become little more than an echo chamber. In its place, people can make use of "reply" to air their viewpoint.

If it helps: If you have view dead turned on in your privilege you’ll see dead comments. Also, if a comment is too grey for you to read, clicking the time stamp will ship it in regular black text. I occasionally vouch for dead comments if they seem reasonable to me, and on occasion that has immediately un-dead them.

That should have said “profile”, not “privilege”.

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

#559

Post by rhino369 »

dgzl wrote: post #254
ginko wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other than Canada I can't think of a country more similar to the US than Australia.

Similar in what ways? Aus is an island country whose societal composition and Constitutional rights are nothing like ours. I wouldn't say they're very similar at all.

I'd say they are pretty similar in most respects. But geography is a big difference that is relevant to Covid-19.

Autrstial probably didn't have community spread of covid until Late Feb. But America had community spread in at least mid Jan--and probably earlier. But Australia locked down essentially when America did. If they can eradicate the disease, that's a huge win, but if they can't they are just delaying what happened in America.

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

#560

Post by Fjolsvith »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #536
Fjolsvith wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is that fair to someone you then infect out in public? Why is it that for all of history this hasn't been an issue for infectious diseases until now?

It's funny you have no clue that the state used to run Tuberculosis sanitariums. Hint the imates didn't have a choice. New York had a sanitarium where they sent people with infectious diseases unless they had a physician to vouch for their care. Public health authorities would quarantine families for scarlet fever. They'd put as a red notice on your door. All perfectly legal.

> All perfectly legal.

While the quarantine order in Wisconsin isn't.

Post reply on HN