Wisconsin Supreme Court Strikes Down Stay At Home Order

Have you read the plan? It doesn't provide any detail at all. I guess I'm expecting far too much.

 

I'd wager it saves more lives than it costs in the long run. People are more resistant to Cvirus and all other diseases when they're healthy, and a stronger economy promotes better general health than a failing economy.

 

Don't need one.
The virus is widely disseminated.

 

Well, why then don't the percentages add up to 100%? The answer: 35% of cases of age over 90 died, instead of 35% of all deaths were over 90. I guess the title of the graph is poorly worded, let's leave it at that.

 

Don't need a covid crisis plan. The winning argument of the Trump 2020 campaign.

 

It could hit you in the face like a mac truck and you still wouldn't see it. I guess you were asleep with the dem governors were having their little meltdown about Trump attempting to make those decisions. Now you're crying that Trump didn't do just that. You lefities aren't happy no matter what happens as long as Trump is still POTUS.

 

The Pence task force has been teleconferencing a meeting with governors every week. I expect governors had a lot of input and discussion which resulted in the glossy little presentation.

 

We can go around and around on this all day. You see it as a strategic paper, I don't. To me, it looks like a high school project. Short on explanations and details.

 

What is hitting me in the face is that this 'plan' could have been written by a high school student, and a good teacher would give it failing marks as a strategic plan. But we won't agree on this - so I guess this is the end of our road. Have a great day.

 

So it lifts the restrictions on businesses but keeps the ones on schools in place. So clearly this wasn't a question of the constitutionality of the order, or the governors ability to enact it, but rather just about the Justices' conservative alignment on the COVID situation. FUNNY HMM GEE GOLLY, I do seem to recall Republicans being heavily against judicial activism. I guess this is just yet another example of the hollowness of GOP ideology. COVID is exposing so much.

 

Schools are a division of the state, and have no rights, protected by the constitution or otherwise.
Private businesses are not, and do
There's the difference.

 

Nothing would suffice, admit it.You'd complain no matter what. If you have further problems, direct them at the state's governors.

 

Are you a state governor?

 

All kids in the US have a right to free public education and so it would take a particular authority to remove that - that authority was recognized. And states may explicitly regulate commerce (notwithstanding interstate conflicts which fall to federal domain) as such the issuing of licenses and subsequent operational ordinances. There's a lot of "muh Constitution" being thrown around these days and its getting particularly aggravating seeing as how incorrectly or irreverently its applied in most case, this being one of them. If you read the Justices' majority decision you can see they didn't take issue with the authority they just disagreed that it was being used in this case. That decision was not based on case law or the state's constitution but rather the Justices' conservative alignment on the COVID situation hence the label of "judicial activism" being applied.

 

it's not a one-size-fits all strategy and, it's unConstitutional for the fed to dictate that type of policy. States have and must have more control of their localized policies and he founding fathers understood that.

 

This does not change anything I said.
Your comparison is invalid because the court ruled in accordance with the constitution in regard to the rights of business owners; schools are not comparable because they are not privately owned.

That, and while the school building are closed, the kids are still going to school.

 

That's already been covered - and I agree. POTUS and administration cannot decide for each state. What they can do - and have failed at - is provide DETAILED parameters around which each state should open. Saying 'declining rates' isn't enough. Declined and sustained by how much? It isn't enough to say that businesses must be sanitized. That's like saying 'your house must be clean'. Everyone's standards are different. The CDC provided those details, but their plan was scuppered. Too oppressive. Makes us look bad. So, now, each state is left to do their own research on how to safely open and what steps must be taken before they can. It is unnecessary work, when a central plan with expertise was created. But shelved.

 

You want the federal government to come up with 50 plans? Plus DC? And the territories?
The states aren't able to do this themselves? The states are't better able to do this themselves?
What if a state decides the "plan" is invalid?

 

I understand your need to push an agenda. In states where it's still frikkin cold do you use the same "guidlines" as where windows are open and people tend to be outside more? Does the "highly" populated state of North Dakota where people do not live on top of each other need the same guidlines as Los Angeles?

You are basing your demands for these guidlines based upon fallacies projected by the media and those with an underlying agenda.

I suggest that you look at various counties, including sparsely populated ones, and then see if the actual facts match what has been forced down our throats. If you are not interested in facts, then carry on with the bashing.

This isn't a political issue but it's been made one because by golly, orange man must be defeated.

 

The Federal Supreme Court didn't strike down anything. Every state has its own supreme court. Wisconsin's Supreme Court was the one to act against the governor's stay-at-home order.

You might be interested someday in reading about how our government operates. Or maybe not.

 

I suppose I will have to accept that I'm not explaining myself well. The examples you provide - with little to no rates of infection - could be opened immediately with the kind of federal strategic approach I suggest we need.

Why is it such a disgrace for people to look to a leader for direction? Is it so wrong to expect a national strategic plan for defeating this virus? Do generals just tell soldiers to go out and shoot as many people as they can?

I have suggested - over and over - that all states should have the same quantifiable objective when looking to open. Not just the word 'lower', but a quantifiable number per capita. Why is that so bloody hard?

 

Trump did not appoint anyone to the WI supreme court - they are elected.

 

And the words 'his own' when referring to supreme court wasn't enough? I thought it was, since we were talking about the state - not federal - supreme court. But good to know that words will be nit picked going forward. Thanks for the heads up.

 

I think you should go back and read more carefully. I'm not suggesting Trump appointed anyone. My point is that Trump empowered the governors to open as they saw fit. Then the SC in that state overturned the governor's decision.

 

Did Trump empower the governors to violate the rights of the people of their state?
Don't you think, implicit in this empowerment, is the idea the governors will recognize and protect the rights of their people., not violate them?