10 ms·

Both sides: courts are supposed to apply the law to the facts. Lawyers guide judges in their arguments, and the court weighs each one, resolving conflicts throu

Both sides: courts are supposed to apply the law to the facts. Lawyers guide judges in their arguments, and the court weighs each one, resolving conflicts through tests and precedent. Read the text of the decision before bringing politics into it. IANAL, but browsing the text: - The ruling cites the Wisconsin constitution. - Governors can issue emergency orders (and maybe rules?) effective for 150 days. - There's a distinction drawn between orders and rules. It doesn't matter if it's declared as an order, if it invokes the powers reserved for rules, it's a rule. - Some reasons the court found it to be a rule: it applies to a general class (all residents), and defines new crimes (non-compliance) - Criminal penalties can only be invoked for properly-promulgated rules. - Therefore, it's a rule, not an order. - Can it be a valid emergency rule? The court cites an example of a forest fire, there's no time for deliberation. - The end date is ambiguous and this emergency is long-lived, therefore it could be brought for deliberation like a normal rule. Then there's lots of handwringing about "an unelected official imprisoning whoever she sees fit", which is very handwavey and makes me suspect: - The emergency rulemaking machinery of Wisconsin is vaguely defined, so there's not a specific rebuttal. - There might have been some judicial activism here. Ideally, the court would grant a stay on the enforcement of the decision, to give her time to properly promulgate the rule. If the legislature resists, or the court doesn't grant the stay, that sucks, the bars and restaurants will open, people will get sick and die. Or maybe the Republicans will turn out correct and everything is fine. It may be a boneheaded decision, but there's no legal recourse for bad policy correctly followed.

asabjorn 6y ago
> If the legislature resists, or the court doesn't grant the stay, that sucks, the bars and restaurants will open, people will get sick and die. Or maybe the Republicans will turn out correct and everything is fine. This assertion needs a citation. If this should be true either hospitalization must be so high that it overwhelms the health system, which was the original justification for the lockdown, or death rate must be high. The 1.5 week old CDC report [1] shows same hospitalization rate as the flu for the vulnerable 65+ population, and less for the vulnerable <18 year population. Stanford study [2] shows same death rate as flu. At this point most states have partially reopened [3] and we are not seeing a surge in COVID cases. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/pdf/covidview-05-01-2020.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/pdf/cov... [2] https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/04/24/study-challenges-reports-of-low-fatality-rate-for-covid-19/ https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/04/24/study-challenges-report... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/states-reopen-map-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/states-reopen-ma...
- belltaco 6y ago
  >The 1.5 week old CDC report [1] shows same hospitalization rate as the flu for the vulnerable 65+ population, and less for the vulnerable <18 year population. Is the hospitalization rate based on how many got the disease or among the general population?
  - asabjorn 6y ago
    It’s across the whole population over the preceding week. The CDC report key takeaways section is recommended reading
    - belltaco 6y ago
      So why would the rate of hospitalizations be comparable if we are having lockdowns that reduce cases of covid a lot? In fact, the fact that the rate of hospitalizations is similar even with broad lockdowns is proof that covid is much more dangerous than the flu. Imagine the rate if there were no lockdowns.
- apostacy 6y ago
  Meanwhile, Sweden never had shelter in place orders, and they did not fare worse than France or Ireland.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    According to EuroMOMO, Sweden's excess mortality rate this year is "high", France's is "low" and Ireland's is "no excess". https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/ https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/
    - asabjorn 6y ago
      Sweden is doing better than NYC without the catastrophic economic consequences NYC is experiencing https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/swedens-doing-better-than-new-york-state-11589221909 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/sweden...
nelaboras 6y ago
> Republicans who brought the lawsuit had asked the justices to side with them but to stay their ruling for about a week so legislators and Evers could work out a new plan to deal with the pandemic. > The justices declined to do that and had their ruling take effect immediately. This is ignoring reality in favor of principle||partisan positioning (choose your preference). Nothing rational or legally sound in throwing the situation into chaos.
- sterlind 6y ago
  Yikes, I didn't know they did that. That sucks, and is more indefensible.. there's no rational reason why the court shouldn't grant a stay when even the plaintiffs want it. Did the court justify their decision in denying the stay?
nn35 6y ago
Would you still think it was judicial activism if it had the opposite effect on policy? If "emergency" is vaguely defined, it seems completely within the purview of the courts to clarify it. Nice summary btw.
xamuel 6y ago
>Ideally, the court would grant a stay on the enforcement of the decision, to give her time to properly promulgate the rule. The ruling explicitly addresses this: the case has been in deliberation for longer than the originally requested stay already. During this time, why has the government not ALREADY promulgated the rule?

asabjorn 6y ago

> If the legislature resists, or the court doesn't grant the stay, that sucks, the bars and restaurants will open, people will get sick and die. Or maybe the Republicans will turn out correct and everything is fine. This assertion needs a citation. If this should be true either hospitalization must be so high that it overwhelms the health system, which was the original justification for the lockdown, or death rate must be high. The 1.5 week old CDC report [1] shows same hospitalization rate as the flu for the vulnerable 65+ population, and less for the vulnerable <18 year population. Stanford study [2] shows same death rate as flu. At this point most states have partially reopened [3] and we are not seeing a surge in COVID cases. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/pdf/covidview-05-01-2020.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/pdf/cov... [2] https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/04/24/study-challenges-reports-of-low-fatality-rate-for-covid-19/ https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/04/24/study-challenges-report... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/states-reopen-map-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/states-reopen-ma...

belltaco 6y ago
>The 1.5 week old CDC report [1] shows same hospitalization rate as the flu for the vulnerable 65+ population, and less for the vulnerable <18 year population. Is the hospitalization rate based on how many got the disease or among the general population?
- asabjorn 6y ago
  It’s across the whole population over the preceding week. The CDC report key takeaways section is recommended reading
  - belltaco 6y ago
    So why would the rate of hospitalizations be comparable if we are having lockdowns that reduce cases of covid a lot? In fact, the fact that the rate of hospitalizations is similar even with broad lockdowns is proof that covid is much more dangerous than the flu. Imagine the rate if there were no lockdowns.
apostacy 6y ago
Meanwhile, Sweden never had shelter in place orders, and they did not fare worse than France or Ireland.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  According to EuroMOMO, Sweden's excess mortality rate this year is "high", France's is "low" and Ireland's is "no excess". https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/ https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/
  - asabjorn 6y ago
    Sweden is doing better than NYC without the catastrophic economic consequences NYC is experiencing https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/swedens-doing-better-than-new-york-state-11589221909 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/sweden...

nelaboras 6y ago

> Republicans who brought the lawsuit had asked the justices to side with them but to stay their ruling for about a week so legislators and Evers could work out a new plan to deal with the pandemic. > The justices declined to do that and had their ruling take effect immediately. This is ignoring reality in favor of principle||partisan positioning (choose your preference). Nothing rational or legally sound in throwing the situation into chaos.

sterlind 6y ago
Yikes, I didn't know they did that. That sucks, and is more indefensible.. there's no rational reason why the court shouldn't grant a stay when even the plaintiffs want it. Did the court justify their decision in denying the stay?

nn35 6y ago

Would you still think it was judicial activism if it had the opposite effect on policy? If "emergency" is vaguely defined, it seems completely within the purview of the courts to clarify it. Nice summary btw.

xamuel 6y ago

>Ideally, the court would grant a stay on the enforcement of the decision, to give her time to properly promulgate the rule. The ruling explicitly addresses this: the case has been in deliberation for longer than the originally requested stay already. During this time, why has the government not ALREADY promulgated the rule?