Live data from Hacker News

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

jsonline.com

561–570 of 604 posts

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

#561
post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But people like you never mention this. Well ask me something about it and I'll answer it (or tell you if I don't know). There are a million things I haven't mentioned. Just like you. We're not writing dissertations on COVID-19 here. I can only address so many things that I find relevant to the discussion. What are you even expecting me to say about this? Of course the elderly and the vulnerable are worse off. How…

Apologies for my verbiage. I should not have done the "people like you" crap. Wrong and uncalled for. You are correct. I don't know all of your opinions on this virus response, and shouldn't have characterized it so. In that note, I certainly don't HOPE to hear anything from experts. I just want to make sure the experts are being consulted on all sides, to better weigh the costs vs. the benefits. Regarding the NPR ar…

> a rather grim detail that I didn't see addressed in that conversation (but maybe I missed it!!) is how that valuation changes for people when they are near the end of their life.

Yeah you did miss it. The question is asked directly ("Did we factor in the age...?") answered quite directly ("Valuing people differently was kind of tried once in 2003..."). I would suggest listening to the whole thing. It's quite eye-opening.

> She expressed frustration at not being able to have the shop opened weeks ago in a control+the owners radically changing how they operate the business to protect the high-risk populations.

It must be incredibly frustrating. I do imagine if she'd gotten checks in the mail to keep life her going, she'd have appreciated that at least as much as having to come to work in the middle of the pandemic, if not more.

> BTW, when she applied for her unemployment benefits in Colorado, an apalling thing with the legislation: Her tip income, which is 40% of her total, was legally not included with her unemployment payout. So she got a reduced amount of what she normally earns, AND she got it late. Other states probably did a far superior job, but I don't have any ideas if that's the case.

This is yet another reason why we need to get rid of tipping and just pay people better instead. And why we need to just mail everyone a check for the pandemic instead of having them rely on unemployment benefits.

> This whole thing is a tragedy, one way or another.

It is definitely a tragedy. However it doesn't need to be this much of a tragedy. If they sent people payments and changed laws accordingly then at least the only thing ruining lives would be the virus, not the economy. It's very tough to say the alternatives people are fighting about are all equally awful with equal certainty here.

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

#562
post #405
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which is, of course, under the delegated authority of the governor.

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

#563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They found a tortured justification for the result they wanted.

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

#564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They found a tortured justification for the result they wanted.

I don't think it's tortured. I think it's a reasonable reading of Wisconsin statutes. Maybe you're torturing your reading of the decision. Or maybe I'm a shill. Any readers that stumble onto this sub-thread will just have to figure it out for themselves, and I suggest they read the opinion because it speaks for itself.

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

#565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They found a tortured justification for the result they wanted.

I don't think it's tortured. I think it's a reasonable reading of Wisconsin statutes. Maybe you're torturing your reading of the decision. Or maybe I'm a shill. Any readers that stumble onto this sub-thread will just have to figure it out for themselves, and I suggest they read the opinion because it speaks for itself.

They should also read Judge Dallet's dissent which makes the same points I've been making.

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

#566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> What?! How do you see that?

The key word in my comment is "additional", which was intended to indicate that I was replying to "and shall protect each of them against Invasion".

I have to admit it's also partially my fault since I didn't notice at the time that you are not the same person who made the original comment I replied to, so I left out some context.

Otherwise I agree that it is just a list of commitments.

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

#567

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…

This sounds like an extremely high resolution description of a group/category of people that likely numbers in the millions. If you encountered someone doing the same but based on a different categorization, you'd likely see the obvious epistemic problems involved, but seeing the same in oneself is difficult, especially when criticizing your personal out-group. That's just one aspect.

> 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.

Is this a two way street? Are the authoritarians and experts who decide policy on highly uncertain data, at best, going to be held responsible for the fallout of their actions? I see little historic precedent for this in the US, and plenty of counter-examples.

> There are very good reasons we allow ourselves to be part of a society or country - people are always better equipped to survive in groups.

Does the group have to consent to authoritarian rule? How about we try transparent & honest, evidence-based reasoning and negotiation first. Maybe people would be a little less resistant then.

> They usually have an ego that...

Be careful when discussing matters involving the ego, they can be very mischievous and deceptive, often leading one to believe things like they possess extraordinary abilities in perception, when the exact opposite is actually the case, just as one example.

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

#568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that the geography, density, etc. are different, but isn't the point to avoid anything approaching the New York scenario?

No. New York did not run out of hospital capacity. The goal is to approach but not exceed hospital capacity.

I don't know what you're responding to. I said nothing about hospital capacity.

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

#569
post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait. I can drive drunk now? Those checkpoints are actually illegal? All those people in jail for DUIs shouldn’t be there? Has anyone taken these laws to the Supreme Court?

> Has anyone taken these laws to the Supreme Court? No, but that's because we live in a legal regime where the government assumes the power to punish people with jail time even when no actual harm is caused, based on a government official's judgment of "possible harm". But the fact that we live in such a regime does not make it right. In a sane legal regime, what would happen if you were driving drunk, but had not ca…

And I can shoot into an apartment as long as I don’t hit anyone. Just pay for the property damage — if any?

What if I kidnap a sleeping baby, but they catch me before the baby awakens or the parents find out. No harm, no foul?

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

#570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait. I can drive drunk now? Those checkpoints are actually illegal? All those people in jail for DUIs shouldn’t be there? Has anyone taken these laws to the Supreme Court?

Wait, you can ban drinking because it could lead to drunk driving now? Because that's a closer analogy.

That’s a further analogy. That’s more like banning breathing.
Post reply on HN