BREAKING: Wisconsin’s Supreme Court strikes down governor's ‘safer at home’ order

[Created4]

BREAKING: Wisconsin’s Supreme Court strikes down governor's ‘safer at home’ order

Good news! And this goes to show we must RESIST because most of these actions have no legal basis to begin with.

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court strikes down governor's ‘safer at home’ order

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court struck down the state's “safer at home” order Wednesday, saying Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ administration overstepped its authority when it extended the order through the end of May.

The court ruled four to three in a case brought forth by Republican lawmakers that sought to block the order issued last month by Evers’ top health secretary, Andrea Palm.

All future lockdown orders must go through the legislature, the ruling said. The Safer at Home order will remain in place for six days, giving the legislature time to come up with new guidance in coordination with Evers' office, according to the court.

Evers issued a stay-at-home order in March which was supposed to expire April 24. But the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Andrea Palm, an Evers appointee, extended it to May 26.

Republicans asked the Supreme Court on April 21 to block the extension, arguing that it amounts to an administrative rule, which requires legislative approval.

Evers’ administration argued that state law clearly gives the executive branch broad authority to enact emergency measures to control communicable diseases. Attorney General Josh Kaul also noted that Evers' order was similar to that in at least 42 other states and has saved many lives.

Chief Justice Patience Roggensack wrote for the majority that the order equates to an emergency rule that Palm can't enact unilaterally. The order creates criminal penalties that Palm has no authority to create, she added.

“Rule-making exists precisely to ensure that kind of controlling, subjective judgement asserted by one unelected official, Palm, is not imposed in Wisconsin,” Roggensack wrote for the majority.

During oral arguments last week, Justice Rebecca Bradley suggested Palm’s decision to extend the order without legislative input amounts to tyranny, according to WKOW.

"I think there is a problem with the legislature giving away this much power to an un-elected cabinet secretary," said Bradley. "The people never consented to a single individual having that kind of power."

Rebecca Dallet, a liberal dissenting Supreme Court justice, wrote that the court's decision will “undoubtedly go down as one of the most blatant examples of judicial activism in this court's history. And it will be Wisconsinites who pay the price."

The high court also backed Republicans over the liberal governor in holding in-person voting in April for the presidential primary amid coronavirus.

 

[Created4]

From the Chicago Tribune's coverage:

Conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley repeatedly peppered Roth with questions about the state’s constitution and whether Palm, the health secretary, had the power to fine and imprison people for actions that are normally lawful. Roth argued the law previously passed by the legislature gave Palm that wide-ranging power during a health emergency, but Bradley seemed unconvinced.

“Where in the constitution did the people of Wisconsin confer authority on a single, unelected Cabinet secretary to compel almost 6 million people to stay at home and close their businesses and face imprisonment if they don’t comply, with no input from the legislature, without the consent of the people?” Bradley asked. “Isn’t it the very definition of tyranny for one person to order people for being imprisoned for going to work, among other ordinarily lawful activities?”

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Created4]

I hope the Wisconsin Democrats appeal this to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will probably rule the same way or just uphold this one, and thereby provide a blue print for every other state to defy these orders!!

 

[helenpaul]

Barr needs to get a case to the supreme court

 

[PAF]

Barr needs to get a case to the supreme court

More big Fed.gov and Rule by 5.

My recommendation would be to f&ck that crap and the people start taking it back. But, I don’t see that happening. Folks want Fed.gov to “solve” everything.

 

[Created4]

More big Fed.gov and Rule by 5.

My recommendation would be to f&ck that crap and the people start taking it back. But, I don’t see that happening. Folks want Fed.gov to “solve” everything.

And that's the problem, unfortunately.

Even though this passed the Wisconsin Supreme Court because the Conservatives hold a majority, the Chicago Tribune piece says:

Evers pointed to the fact that 64% of voters approved of his handling of the virus.

That approval rating for the governor’s handling of the pandemic, however, was down from 76% in March. But like many governors, Evers public support far outpaces President Donald Trump’s handling of the pandemic. The poll, released Tuesday, found 44% of Wisconsin voters approved of Trump’s response to COVID-19, down from 51% in March.

The new poll found that 53% of Wisconsin voters said they trusted Evers more to properly respond to the pandemic compared to 33% who said the trusted the state legislature more.

So public support is not there yet. But some high profile RESISTANCE events across the nation might give some people more courage to start resisting.

 

[CCTelander]

More big Fed.gov and Rule by 5.

My recommendation would be to f&ck that crap and the people start taking it back. But, I don’t see that happening. Folks want Fed.gov to “solve” everything.

Exactly. It's great when courts and pols decide to do the right thing and side with us, but it can NEVER be relied upon. Increase the pressure until they can't help but come around.

Many years ago in a rare display of truthfulness Sen. Everett Dirksen famously remarked "When I feel the heat, I see the light." Make the sociopathic bastards feel the heat. In most cases that's the ONLY time they'll do right.

 

[Anti Globalist]

This was a 4-3 decision. It should have been a 7-0 decision. A victory by the skin of its teeth, but a victory nonetheless.