7 ms·

There's a couple centuries of common law precedent that the government can compel behavior for public health crises. The state supreme court here grossly violat

There's a couple centuries of common law precedent that the government can compel behavior for public health crises. The state supreme court here grossly violated legal precedent, and will have its ass overturned in a heartbeat if anyone has the time, resources, and will to escalate.

bobthepanda 6y ago
I was under the impression that the federal circuit only really looks at cases impacting federal law. Is there a place to escalate to?
- zaroth 6y ago
  TFA says they are the court of last resort.
- arkades 6y ago
  You are correct, there is not. I didn't attend to which circuit had issued the landmark-stupid ruling.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    Why is the ruling stupid? It seems like an entirely reasonable check on the power of the governor. The health department and governor can order a binding shelter in place, but the elected state representatives have the power to overrule it. Shouldn't the majority be able to revoke such an order if they want?
    - arkades 6y ago
      Of course they can. Public health agencies' powers derive from founding statutes. A legislative body can always undertake an act of legislation to change the founding statute and, in so doing, change the powers of the public health agency as they see fit. They didn't do that here. They wanted a direct check on the agency's decision, rather than executing the power they actually had. To quote my other response, on why this was a stupid ruling: >Which is literally the court's excuse for the "rulemaking" ruling - that they should have gone through the 12mo+ tradition of regulation-development that legislatively-empowered agencies utilize. Which isn't how public health powers usually work - the public health powers are delineated in empowering statutes and regulations ahead of time, and allow leewey to do things like "order quarantine" within broadly-worded statutes+regs. > Which is why this was phenomenally stupid. Besides ignoring context, this was a ruling that basically boiled down to "agencies cannot exercise the powers developed in the scope of their founding statutes and regulations unless those (edit: specific manifestations) have been very explicitly laid out ahead of time, otherwise, they need to go to rulemaking for every application of their powers." It effectively guts the ability of agencies to do things they are supposed to do, have been doing, and prevents them from acting in time-frames <12months. All in the context of a legislative body that had a legal remedy afforded to them, but that would have been too slow. So for political purposes, they've now gutted the ability of emergency agencies to respond to emergencies, so that legislatures don't have to legislate changes to legislation.
TylerE 6y ago
I'd like to think that, but after the GOP's outrageous actions to stack the Supreme Court I can't be sure the outcome would be any different.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> There's a couple centuries of common law precedent that the government can compel behavior for public health crises. The issue that was cobtrolling here was compliance with proper administative procedure, not the authority of state government to compel behavior. So precedent on the latter is immaterial. > The state supreme court here grossly violated legal precedent, and will have its ass overturned in a heartbeat if anyone has the time, resources, and will to escalate. It's a state law claim that has been adjudicated by the highest state court, there is no place for the case to be escalated to.
shepherds 6y ago
How did they "grossly violate legal precedent?" Nobody challenged the governor's order, they challenged the authority of the health services secretary to extend the order. Conservative judicial interpretation of the constitution is that power not explicitly granted by congress is not lawful. Even though I'm not a conservative, I'm glad that opinion won.
pdonis 6y ago
*> government can compel behavior for public health crises You do recognize the difference between "government, acting according to established procedures with proper involvement by all branches of government" and "one single person, acting on emergency authority that was never intended to last this long", right?
- djsumdog 6y ago
  Plagues gave way to public health, and some would argue, modern plagues formed the State as we know it today. Of course back then ministries of health burned people alive in their houses, but today, they give us clean water and safe food: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rr9b-HMSS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rr9b-HMSS4
  - pdonis 6y ago
    The ministry of health doesn't give me clean water and safe food. At best, it makes and (to some extent) checks for compliance with regulations about those things. But it doesn't produce them. At least, not in any country that actually has sufficient quantities of either.
cryptonector 6y ago
Yes, but there's much less support for Executives acting alone. We have a republican form of government where only the legislative branch can pass criminal statutes. In this case the Wisconsin Legislature sued to preserve its powers and prerogatives, as well it should. That does not mean that it won't be amenable to passing supporting statutes.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  > Yes, but there's much less support for Executives acting alone. The whole point of having an executive is for a single person to act alone and decisively, especially in times of crisis. In the midst of an emergency is not the time for legislative subcommittees to endlessly debate.
  - WillPostForFood 6y ago
    The process in Wisconsin isn't endless debate - just submit the rile to the legislative committee, and they have the power to negate it. It is affirmed by default.
  - cryptonector 6y ago
    Actually, no. That would be a dictator. In American constitutional law the Executive has rather limited powers.
    - mullingitover 6y ago
      > the Executive has rather limited powers The US president has the power to unilaterally order a nuclear strike on any point on the planet at any time they choose, regardless of how anyone in the other branches feel about it at the time. So 'limited,' maybe, but also able to end life on Earth as we know it on a whim. That's an aside, however. I'm talking about the general concept of an executive office, not specifically the US president. And sure, there can be limits, but the whole point of an executive is to avoid endless deliberation in the appropriate situations. Perfect example: Congress had the constitutional power to manage tariffs, and they surrendered that power to the president willingly because they weren't able to be decisive enough with it.

bobthepanda 6y ago

I was under the impression that the federal circuit only really looks at cases impacting federal law. Is there a place to escalate to?

zaroth 6y ago
TFA says they are the court of last resort.
arkades 6y ago
You are correct, there is not. I didn't attend to which circuit had issued the landmark-stupid ruling.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  Why is the ruling stupid? It seems like an entirely reasonable check on the power of the governor. The health department and governor can order a binding shelter in place, but the elected state representatives have the power to overrule it. Shouldn't the majority be able to revoke such an order if they want?
  - arkades 6y ago
    Of course they can. Public health agencies' powers derive from founding statutes. A legislative body can always undertake an act of legislation to change the founding statute and, in so doing, change the powers of the public health agency as they see fit. They didn't do that here. They wanted a direct check on the agency's decision, rather than executing the power they actually had. To quote my other response, on why this was a stupid ruling: >Which is literally the court's excuse for the "rulemaking" ruling - that they should have gone through the 12mo+ tradition of regulation-development that legislatively-empowered agencies utilize. Which isn't how public health powers usually work - the public health powers are delineated in empowering statutes and regulations ahead of time, and allow leewey to do things like "order quarantine" within broadly-worded statutes+regs. > Which is why this was phenomenally stupid. Besides ignoring context, this was a ruling that basically boiled down to "agencies cannot exercise the powers developed in the scope of their founding statutes and regulations unless those (edit: specific manifestations) have been very explicitly laid out ahead of time, otherwise, they need to go to rulemaking for every application of their powers." It effectively guts the ability of agencies to do things they are supposed to do, have been doing, and prevents them from acting in time-frames <12months. All in the context of a legislative body that had a legal remedy afforded to them, but that would have been too slow. So for political purposes, they've now gutted the ability of emergency agencies to respond to emergencies, so that legislatures don't have to legislate changes to legislation.

TylerE 6y ago

I'd like to think that, but after the GOP's outrageous actions to stack the Supreme Court I can't be sure the outcome would be any different.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> There's a couple centuries of common law precedent that the government can compel behavior for public health crises. The issue that was cobtrolling here was compliance with proper administative procedure, not the authority of state government to compel behavior. So precedent on the latter is immaterial. > The state supreme court here grossly violated legal precedent, and will have its ass overturned in a heartbeat if anyone has the time, resources, and will to escalate. It's a state law claim that has been adjudicated by the highest state court, there is no place for the case to be escalated to.

shepherds 6y ago

How did they "grossly violate legal precedent?" Nobody challenged the governor's order, they challenged the authority of the health services secretary to extend the order. Conservative judicial interpretation of the constitution is that power not explicitly granted by congress is not lawful. Even though I'm not a conservative, I'm glad that opinion won.

pdonis 6y ago

*> government can compel behavior for public health crises You do recognize the difference between "government, acting according to established procedures with proper involvement by all branches of government" and "one single person, acting on emergency authority that was never intended to last this long", right?

djsumdog 6y ago
Plagues gave way to public health, and some would argue, modern plagues formed the State as we know it today. Of course back then ministries of health burned people alive in their houses, but today, they give us clean water and safe food: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rr9b-HMSS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rr9b-HMSS4
- pdonis 6y ago
  The ministry of health doesn't give me clean water and safe food. At best, it makes and (to some extent) checks for compliance with regulations about those things. But it doesn't produce them. At least, not in any country that actually has sufficient quantities of either.

cryptonector 6y ago

Yes, but there's much less support for Executives acting alone. We have a republican form of government where only the legislative branch can pass criminal statutes. In this case the Wisconsin Legislature sued to preserve its powers and prerogatives, as well it should. That does not mean that it won't be amenable to passing supporting statutes.

mullingitover 6y ago
> Yes, but there's much less support for Executives acting alone. The whole point of having an executive is for a single person to act alone and decisively, especially in times of crisis. In the midst of an emergency is not the time for legislative subcommittees to endlessly debate.
- WillPostForFood 6y ago
  The process in Wisconsin isn't endless debate - just submit the rile to the legislative committee, and they have the power to negate it. It is affirmed by default.
- cryptonector 6y ago
  Actually, no. That would be a dictator. In American constitutional law the Executive has rather limited powers.
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    > the Executive has rather limited powers The US president has the power to unilaterally order a nuclear strike on any point on the planet at any time they choose, regardless of how anyone in the other branches feel about it at the time. So 'limited,' maybe, but also able to end life on Earth as we know it on a whim. That's an aside, however. I'm talking about the general concept of an executive office, not specifically the US president. And sure, there can be limits, but the whole point of an executive is to avoid endless deliberation in the appropriate situations. Perfect example: Congress had the constitutional power to manage tariffs, and they surrendered that power to the president willingly because they weren't able to be decisive enough with it.