Wisconsin Supreme Court Strikes Down Stay At Home Order

If you have 20 data entry points, and 18 have data but 2 are "unknown", then you enter the data you have and divide by 20 (not 18 ) The resulting percentages on the graph will only total 90%, Quantum Nerd.

 

Trump didn't empower the governors. The Constitution gives the vast powers separate from the federal government. We don't live under a dictatorship or monarchy, as much as the left keeps voting for that type of change. States have a lot of separate autonomous power and rights.

 

It literally didn't and you edited out the part where I tell you why. I'm sensing a pattern of denial here with you TOG 6. Read the actual language of the decision. The Justices are telling you in their own words why they ruled the way they did. Hell, read the actual brief that Republican lawmakers filed when making the lawsuit. Members of the Republican legislature sued not against the authority of the governor and the health secretary to place stay-at-home ordinances via executive order but rather that the state legislature should be the body to enact such ordinances. In response the Justices' didn't strike down the governors ability to issue executive orders they simply agreed it shouldn't be used in this case WHICH IS A SUBJECTIVE OPINION NOT A LEGAL CONSTRUCT! This was a political power struggle, nothing more. You're telling us the authority was invalid because "muh rights" but there's just nothing to support that.

Sad thing is now Wisconsin has no protection plan in place and one of the two functional mechanisms that could enact one was just gutted. Now all those people have to depend on is the Republican controlled legislature, the very people who have already claimed there's no need for any protections anymore. What do you imagine is going to happen come winter when COVID 2.0 strikes harder than we've yet seen? This rebel court just left its people defenseless.

 

So when Trump told Governors - in April - that they were calling their own shots, was he just talking for the sake of it? If they always had that right, why did Trump feel the need to tell them that?

 

I get it - you and I see this differently. And we, each, have the right to our opinion. We can dance all day, but won't reach agreement. So I'll bow out. thanks

 

First Trump claimed that he and only he could decide when the country would open up.

Somebody informed him of the US Constitution, and in perhaps the most gracious act of his entire term, he corrected himself a few days later.

 

Explaining civics and government structure to someone who is clearly uninformed about how things work is not nit picking. It is an attempt to educate. Sometimes it falls on deaf ears. Knowledge is power. You get knowledge from reading and researching a topic, like government structure, before forming an opinion...else you come across as ignorant.

 

The Supreme Court held:
(1) Emergency Order 28 is a "rule" under Wis. Stat. 227.01(13);
(2) because Palm did not follow rulemaking procedures during Order 28's promulgation, there could be no criminal penalties for violations of her order; and
(3) Palm's order further exceeded the statutory authority of Wis. Stat. 252.02.



How is your characterization accurate?
How is the court wrong?
Demonstrate the error.

 

This is your usual response to being placed in a position where a person would normally concede their error.
Thus, I accept your concession .

 

If that's what floats your boat, TOG, have at it. I have no desire to go back and forth all day without resolution.

 

I accepted your concession - you need not respond any further.

 

So perhaps you could point out where I said that it was THE supreme court (presuming federal), instead of HIS, when referring to the governor.

If that high horse gives you a good ride, stay on it. But making assumptions about others' intelligence or level of information can make it a bumpy ride now and then. I hope you have a lovely day.

 

Pronoun reference unclear. "His" appears to refer to Trump, but poor grammatical sentence structure might allow for "his" to be interpreted as "the governor". Will give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Sounds like a cop out.
If its safe to open up economy, that should be all the economy. Schools included.

 

You said restrict. Not the poster you replied to.

That poster said National Strategy.
Maybe that is the problem? Some see strategy as restriction?

 

hmm, asymptomatic folks are taken from nursing homes and placed into hospital beds until they have 2 negative test results. These people do not require hospitalization however because of these "policies", the occupied beds number increases.

When you have policies in place which needlessly drive up numbers, you can't use those same policies as a measuring stick to stop the draconian edicts that are now in place

 

Schools have some sovereignty. Taxes for each independent school district are billed separately from other taxes and the ISD school boards are elected by the community in the district.

 

Why does a strategy have to be a 1 size fits all?

 

bullcrap

it empowered the people and ceased the govt over-reach. If you want to stay at home with your home-made mask, then feel free to do just that.

 

So the state gov'ts can be forced to remain in lock down?

 

Changes nothing.
But shows you won't put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.

Kind of an internet tuff guy.

 

They did.
But decided not to follow them.

There was something from them about 14 days of declining new cases or deaths, etc.

 

I don't understand your question. School districts are local and independent. A state, or the federal government, could cut any public school funding (on top of local taxpayer charges) if they wanted to "influence" a school board's decision.

 

So what if they are independent. So are businesses.

Why can't each independent school district decide for themselves when to open up like the business now can do?

 

Technically they could. Any ISD could challenge a mayor or governor's blanket decision. That's what the court system is there for if/when higher-level offices exert overreach.