4 ms·

Except when it’s unconstitutional. It’s almost certain that all of this won’t hold up in the supreme court.

dekhn 6y ago
Be specific. What court case against public health officials could somebody today bring to court, successfully appeal all the way to the SC, and win? My guess is that the SC is going to look at our laws, the Constitution, and conclude that in the case of serious medical situations, the government has the right to limit the movement and speech of individuals and corporations, while still allowing for democratic processes to elect new officials who might enact more stringent or lenient laws within the constitutional framework.
- geggam 6y ago
  Interesting test of the bill of rights isnt it ? Where is the balance ? Individual not being able to work and feed his family vs some of society getting sick and those who had pre existing conditions sometimes dying. How do you predict what is worse ? If you read about the impact of the great depression it makes covid look rather trivial. Do we repeat the great depression and is that for the benefit of society as a whole ?
- ByteJockey 6y ago
  I think you could get away with movement, but do you really thing restricting speech would hold up? Beyond someone actively trying to get everyone to go outside at the same time and deliberately infecting people right now, I don't see what could pass the brandenburg test. Imminent lawless action is a really high bar.
peatmoss 6y ago
I keep hearing people assert this, but never seem to provide a legal explanation of how it would work. My understanding is that the US has upheld the longstanding use of the police power to preserve health, safety, and the general welfare. I’m curious what you think the court’s rationale would be. I guess I have a hard time believing either that the court would entertain the idea that the county has no legitimate interest in its residents’ welfare, that they would reject legal precedent older than the US constitution, or that they would take up a challenge based on a factual disagreement about epidemiology. My mind is open to a reasoned legal argument!
- geggam 6y ago
  How does a great depression level event benefit society ? When you tell everyone to stay home its not an individual you are impacting. You are damaging the entire social structure to prevent damage to the social structure. Is the cure worse than the disease ? Prove the disease is worse because you are supposed to have due process to remove rights.
  - peatmoss 6y ago
    This doesn’t really address my question. I’m not spoiling for an argument over what you think is the right course of action. I’m curious about why the court would second guess the decision making of the county. Let’s for the sake of argument say I thought that the county’s decision were silly. Governments do things that some people think are silly all the time. Yet, the court intervenes only in very few specific cases, under a very carefully chosen set of circumstances.
    - jlbnjmn 6y ago
      Not a lawyer. Tesla competes with GM, Ford, etc. Tesla is not a local business. Tesla's primary trade is interstate commerce. Court may decide the county is unfairly restricting Tesla and giving an unfair advantage to competitors. Also, while I've been happily self isolated for two months and plan to continue, I don't believe that many of these restrictions would be upheld if challenged in court. Why can a Target stay open and sell non-essential merchandise while a competitor that doesn't also sell groceries can't? To be fair, Target and Wal-Mart would need to have ceased selling non-essentials. But then the government is deciding what is and isn't an essential good... Which is why I don't think it would/will hold up. Thankfully, people with the jobs/means to stay home actually staying home has relieved some of the pressure, so restrictions can be lifted without actually causing everyone to rush to the bar or sports event.
      - Talanes 6y ago
        The vast majority of auto-manufacturing isn't opening for another week. It's hard to believe he's at a disadvantage when Michigan hasn't opened their plants either.
javagram 6y ago
There is actually a classic Supreme Court case upholding states’ right to interfere in business operations for the sake of public health. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnie_Francaise_de_Navigation_a_Vapeur_v._Louisiana_Board_of_Health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnie_Francaise_de_Navigat... Courts have repeatedly held quarantine regulations constitutional within recent years both during Ebola and COVID-19 related cases. Never mind that health departments regularly shut down restaurants and food industry operations when food-borne disease outbreaks occur.
- umanwizard 6y ago
  That case involved quarantine of individuals, not a generalized shutdown of almost all businesses.

Be specific. What court case against public health officials could somebody today bring to court, successfully appeal all the way to the SC, and win? My guess is that the SC is going to look at our laws, the Constitution, and conclude that in the case of serious medical situations, the government has the right to limit the movement and speech of individuals and corporations, while still allowing for democratic processes to elect new officials who might enact more stringent or lenient laws within the constitutional framework.

geggam 6y ago
Interesting test of the bill of rights isnt it ? Where is the balance ? Individual not being able to work and feed his family vs some of society getting sick and those who had pre existing conditions sometimes dying. How do you predict what is worse ? If you read about the impact of the great depression it makes covid look rather trivial. Do we repeat the great depression and is that for the benefit of society as a whole ?
ByteJockey 6y ago
I think you could get away with movement, but do you really thing restricting speech would hold up? Beyond someone actively trying to get everyone to go outside at the same time and deliberately infecting people right now, I don't see what could pass the brandenburg test. Imminent lawless action is a really high bar.

peatmoss 6y ago

I keep hearing people assert this, but never seem to provide a legal explanation of how it would work. My understanding is that the US has upheld the longstanding use of the police power to preserve health, safety, and the general welfare. I’m curious what you think the court’s rationale would be. I guess I have a hard time believing either that the court would entertain the idea that the county has no legitimate interest in its residents’ welfare, that they would reject legal precedent older than the US constitution, or that they would take up a challenge based on a factual disagreement about epidemiology. My mind is open to a reasoned legal argument!

geggam 6y ago
How does a great depression level event benefit society ? When you tell everyone to stay home its not an individual you are impacting. You are damaging the entire social structure to prevent damage to the social structure. Is the cure worse than the disease ? Prove the disease is worse because you are supposed to have due process to remove rights.
- peatmoss 6y ago
  This doesn’t really address my question. I’m not spoiling for an argument over what you think is the right course of action. I’m curious about why the court would second guess the decision making of the county. Let’s for the sake of argument say I thought that the county’s decision were silly. Governments do things that some people think are silly all the time. Yet, the court intervenes only in very few specific cases, under a very carefully chosen set of circumstances.
  - jlbnjmn 6y ago
    Not a lawyer. Tesla competes with GM, Ford, etc. Tesla is not a local business. Tesla's primary trade is interstate commerce. Court may decide the county is unfairly restricting Tesla and giving an unfair advantage to competitors. Also, while I've been happily self isolated for two months and plan to continue, I don't believe that many of these restrictions would be upheld if challenged in court. Why can a Target stay open and sell non-essential merchandise while a competitor that doesn't also sell groceries can't? To be fair, Target and Wal-Mart would need to have ceased selling non-essentials. But then the government is deciding what is and isn't an essential good... Which is why I don't think it would/will hold up. Thankfully, people with the jobs/means to stay home actually staying home has relieved some of the pressure, so restrictions can be lifted without actually causing everyone to rush to the bar or sports event.
    - Talanes 6y ago
      The vast majority of auto-manufacturing isn't opening for another week. It's hard to believe he's at a disadvantage when Michigan hasn't opened their plants either.

javagram 6y ago

There is actually a classic Supreme Court case upholding states’ right to interfere in business operations for the sake of public health. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnie_Francaise_de_Navigation_a_Vapeur_v._Louisiana_Board_of_Health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnie_Francaise_de_Navigat... Courts have repeatedly held quarantine regulations constitutional within recent years both during Ebola and COVID-19 related cases. Never mind that health departments regularly shut down restaurants and food industry operations when food-borne disease outbreaks occur.

umanwizard 6y ago
That case involved quarantine of individuals, not a generalized shutdown of almost all businesses.