Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

VIDEO – Wisconsin Sup. Ct. Justice: Isn’t state’s lockdown order “the very definition of tyranny?”

VIDEO – Wisconsin Sup. Ct. Justice: Isn’t state’s lockdown order “the very definition of tyranny?”

Oral argument heard today in lawsuit by legislature contesting state official’s authority to impose the ‘safer-at-home’ lockdown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFf-CMPzwiM

The Wisconsin Supreme Court heard oral argument via video in the case brought by the Wisconsin legislature contesting the authority of state officials to impose a lockdown order.

We covered the case before, please refer to those posts for background:

The full video of the argument is at the bottom of this post. These comments by Republican Justice Rebecca Bradley are getting a lot of attention:

“Where in the Constitution did the people of Wisconsin confer authority on a single, un-elected cabinet secretary to compel almost 6 mil people to stay at home, close their businesses & face imprisonment if they don’t comply… Isn’t it the very definition of tyranny?”

I didn’t have time today to watch the whole argument, so I can’t express a view on who did better and who did worse, so draw your own conclusios. From the reactions I’m seeing on social media, supporters of continuing the lockdown are expecting a loss.

Here’s the full livestream:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

On Wisconsin!

rabid wombat | May 5, 2020 at 6:40 pm

Freedom!

“From the reactions I’m seeing on social media, supporters of continuing the lockdown are expecting a loss.”

It could also be the John Roberts strategy: bully the Court in the hopes of peeling off one or more “Republican” judges to rubber stamp the Democrats’ mad scheme.

“Where in the Constitution did the people of Wisconsin confer . . . the very definition of tyranny?”

A woman said that, huh?

Well, a few more like that and I may have to revise my opinion of the 19th Amendment.

Maybe.

Frankly, I believe this has been something that should have been challenged in a lot of states, not just Wisconsin. I hope this case proceeds well for freedom, and with the understanding that with freedom comes responsibility.

There are measures that can be put in place to help protect the most vulnerable population without becoming draconian and without shutting down the whole economy.

I cannot listen to the Crown Prince Cuomo anymore. His snark about pushing blame of deaths from this Wuhan virus onto any who dares not follow his dictates is disgusting. He has lead NY to the brink with all his pet leftist stances, he was the one who ignored purchases of medical equipment that was recommended to him in favor of doing his pet projects to little benefit to any but himself and his self aggrandizement.

Many of the dictates from these states seem they fall outside the purview of their offices, and flies in the face of the Constitution.

I hope this case helps put others on notice, and starts moving us back to some normality. We may not have a state economy to open back up if these tin pot dictators have their way.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to oldgoat36. | May 6, 2020 at 12:19 am

    Cuomo truly is Caligula.

    Milhouse in reply to oldgoat36. | May 6, 2020 at 12:34 am

    Frankly, I believe this has been something that should have been challenged in a lot of states, not just Wisconsin.

    Since the entire basis of the challenge is state law, it can’t be brought in states where the laws are different.

    Nobody is alleging that there is a constitutional violation here.

    Also there are very few if any other states where this situation is happening. In most states the regulations are being made by the governor. Had Evers been making them in Wisconsin, this challenge would not be happening. (In Michigan the legislature claims that the governor has exceeded her statutory authority, but that’s not the case in Wisconsin.)

      Disco Stu_ in reply to Milhouse. | May 6, 2020 at 6:59 am

      Now is the best opportunity to INSIST on changes to the N.Y. State Constitution to limit the Governor’s apparently-unrestrained authority once he decides to declare an “emergency”.

      I accept that The Guv’s initial declaration was probably justified, certainly with respect to the obvious downstate dangers. But now he continues to just keep restricting the rest of us, accompanied by daily cranky scolding lectures, apparently without any credible official contrary voices being heard.

      1. Okay, declare an emergency if you can justify it.
      2. Here are your new extraordinary executive powers. But …
      3. But for ONLY 10 days. MAYBE 10 more. But then …
      4. But then LEGISLATIVE action is required. If not explicitly supportive, all those extraordinary orders you (alone, possibly) decided to impose on your citizens expire.

      #FreeUpstateNY!

        DaveGinOly in reply to Disco Stu_. | May 6, 2020 at 1:44 pm

        An analog of the “War Powers Act” for state constitutions, granting limited initial emergency authority followed continuances only as authorized by the state’s legislature.

        pwaldoch in reply to Disco Stu_. | May 6, 2020 at 11:45 pm

        In effect what you are describing is what Wisconsin has. Gov Evers can declare and emergency and issue related rules and edicts for mitigation but it lasts no longer than 60 days unless the state legislature enacts a law to extend it and extend or create any other mitigation procedures. His HHS is part of his administration and thus subject to the 60 day limitation.

      Strelnikov in reply to Milhouse. | May 6, 2020 at 12:42 pm

      Nonsense. Two suits are pending here in IL alleging exactly that, in addition to statutory violations. A trial court has already ruled the our big, fat moron of a governor exceeded his powers. He is appealing directly to the ILSCt.

    Milhouse in reply to oldgoat36. | May 6, 2020 at 12:36 am

    he was the one who ignored purchases of medical equipment that was recommended to him

    That is not true, and repeating it won’t make it any truer. It simply did not happen.

      Barry in reply to Milhouse. | May 6, 2020 at 8:09 am

      It’s true and denying the truth doesn’t make it less true.

        Milhouse in reply to Barry. | May 6, 2020 at 11:00 am

        Barry, you’re not entitled to your own facts. There is only one truth in this universe, and it is the opposite of your claim. If the Many-Worlds theory is correct, then there is another universe in which this happened, but it didn’t happen in this one.

          Barry in reply to Milhouse. | May 6, 2020 at 11:05 pm

          It’s still true and you are wrong as you almost always are. Just another prog taking up for a fellow prog. It’s what you do.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | May 7, 2020 at 2:57 am

          Barry, you are and remain a damned liar. How dare you call me a “prog”? Nothing I have ever written here has given you any cause for that; you’re just a piece of excrement who doesn’t give an excrement about the truth, and lies whenever it suits you. As you are doing in this instance. The fact remains, and will always remain, that Cuomo did not “ignore purchases of medical equipment that was recommended to him”.

The Wisconsin SC is a breath of fresh air is a sea of tyranny.

    pfg in reply to Barry. | May 5, 2020 at 9:10 pm

    Hold on. Its ruling hasn’t come out yet.

      Barry in reply to pfg. | May 5, 2020 at 11:16 pm

      True, LOL. I’m getting carried away by the one justice.

      Frank Hammond in reply to pfg. | May 6, 2020 at 10:09 am

      I talked to people who were at the Court hearing yesterday. It does not look good. Bradley is alone in this fight. The rest of the court looks like they will give Fake Doctor Andrea Palm unchecked power over the state.

      Palm is already telling towns to shut down any 4 of July Celebrations. Once the court grants her supreme power, Wisconsin becomes Cuba.

      Some very bad times are ahead for the Badger State.

If corvid19 were as bad as the press and social media would have us believe none of us would have time to bicker about the tertiary nuances of Life in a Pandemic.

We’d be refitting garbage trucks to carry corpses to mass grave sites.

In my Calif. county of 300,000
16 people infected.
16 people recovered.
No new reported infections for 3 weeks.

thad_the_man | May 5, 2020 at 8:52 pm

Boy the defendant seems to be giving a demonstration of how not to make oral arguments. Not that that will determine the decision.

By my count it seems like this will be decided 4-3, with the Chief Justice being the person to decide, and she will give the plaintiffs much but not all of what they want.

Subotai Bahadur | May 5, 2020 at 9:15 pm

Despite Republicans controlling both Houses of the Legislature and the governorship, this is after all Wisconsin which is more than passing odd. Do not be sure that the law or the constitution will have a bearing on the result.

Subotai Bahadur

    Vancomycin in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | May 5, 2020 at 9:41 pm

    The legislature is indeed republican controlled, buyback the governor is as lefty democrat as you’ll get anywhere.

    His name his Tony Evers

      Subotai Bahadur in reply to Vancomycin. | May 6, 2020 at 12:29 am

      My error then. Thanks for the correction. Mind you that makes the odds of a just decision that much worse.

      Subotai Bahadur

        Milhouse in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | May 6, 2020 at 12:42 am

        No, the only majority that matters is on the court, and despite the unfortunate election result a few weeks ago the majority is still on the side of the law.

          Vancomycin in reply to Milhouse. | May 6, 2020 at 7:18 am

          Normally I would disagree with Milhouse, but in this case he’s absolutely correct.

          The WI supreme court is, for now, run by the conservatives (that’s changing). This case is being heard by a court that is split in favor of the conservatives (or, the ones that follow the actual law).

          On a side note: I think the reason I tend to disagree with Milhouse isn’t that he’s *wrong* a lot, it’s that I read the text of his comments as being said by somebody with a supercilious and condescending attitude.

          Which is probably unfair. I really can’t get “tone” from text very easily, and really shouldn’t judge someone’s written arguments from that standpoint.

    Frank Hammond in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | May 6, 2020 at 3:46 pm

    Despite The Republicans holding both houses, they are spineless cowards. In Wisconsin, GOP stands for Gutless Old Party

Vancomycin | May 5, 2020 at 9:42 pm

Buyback = but. Stupid phone

There is a judge in Texas that needs to hear that but still is on the Marxist Democrat plantation that sentenced a feisty Texas woman to the slammer for wanting to work. His justification would make the CCP smile.

    Milhouse in reply to alaskabob. | May 6, 2020 at 12:44 am

    She is not a judge judge, and she hasn’t sentenced anyone to anything, because she can’t. She’s a “county judge”, which in Texas is a title for the county executive.

      herm2416 in reply to Milhouse. | May 6, 2020 at 6:44 am

      Texas judge is a male.

      aggiecon in reply to Milhouse. | May 6, 2020 at 6:58 am

      I think alaskabob is referring to judge Eric Moye in Dallas.

      Barry in reply to Milhouse. | May 6, 2020 at 8:13 am

      Just once you should try reading what is discussed instead of just responding the way the progs prefer.

      This was an actual judge that sentenced a woman to 7 days in jail because she would not apologize.

      SuddenlyHappyToBeHere in reply to Milhouse. | May 6, 2020 at 10:17 am

      indeed a different court judge in Dallas than the county judge in Houston. Here is what the defendant salon owner said:

      “A defiant Luther, who faces at least $3,500 in fines, argued that she was trying to prevent her children and employees from “going hungry,” NBC Dallas-Fort Worth reported.

      “I have to disagree when you say I’m selfish, because feeding my kids is not selfish,” Luther said. “I have hair stylists going hungry because they’d rather feed their kids. If you think law is more important than kids being fed, go ahead with your decision. But I’m not going to shut the salon.”

      If I had hair, I’d take a trip to Dallas to get it cut!

      Jefferson Alexander in reply to Milhouse. | May 6, 2020 at 5:00 pm

      Milhouse, you’re not entitled to your own facts. Read more and get more acquainted with the truth & reality before you start pontificating about (what you think you know) about the law. You’re dead wrong about the Texas judge and the salon owner case.

Barr is turning out to be the second coming of boehner.

We saw how that worked out last time.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | May 6, 2020 at 12:58 am

More tyany…….

Exclusive: Government scientist Neil Ferguson resigns after breaking lockdown rules to meet his married lover.

Prof Ferguson allowed the woman to visit him at home during the lockdown while lecturing the public on the need for strict social distancing

So someone finally gets it – in this case, a judge – and explains the full context of the matter in such a brief statement. Wow. And consider this: this is the first time in recorded history that HEALTHY, UNAFFECTED people were forced into quarantine. Bizarre!

    chocopot: Wow. And consider this: this is the first time in recorded history that HEALTHY, UNAFFECTED people were forced into quarantine.

    The word quarantine comes from the practice of isolating ships and their crews for 40 days just in case they might be carrying plague.

    • Isolation separates sick people with a contagious disease from people who are not sick.

    • Quarantine separates and restricts the movements of people who were exposed to a contagious disease to see if they become sick.

    https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/index.html

    a restraint upon the activities or communication of persons or the transport of goods designed to prevent the spread of disease or pests

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quarantine

    The last large-scale quarantine in the U.S. was during the 1918-1919 flu pandemic.

    Social isolation to combat an infectious disease is not a new phenomenon.

    Dutch Master Vermeer’s guide to counting the hours

      chocopot in reply to Zachriel. | May 6, 2020 at 10:45 am

      “Quarantine separates and restricts the movements of people who were exposed to a contagious disease to see if they become sick.”

      So you are suggesting that EVERY person in every country that is on lockdown was exposed to this contagious disease (Covid-19)? In that case, every person on earth should be on lockdown forever since there are always contagious diseases on the loose somewhere on earth. Makes no sense.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Zachriel. | May 6, 2020 at 1:52 pm

      In which case rules for entering ports, possibly entry of aliens/non-citizens, and rules governing international commerce may apply, along with (possibly) the heavy hand of jurisdiction in admiralty.

      It’s not a good example.

      chocopot: So you are suggesting that EVERY person in every country that is on lockdown was exposed to this contagious disease (Covid-19)?

      It’s called community spread. If the U.S. had acted more quickly, they might have contained the virus. Instead, the U.S. president continued to minimized the problem when even a few days mattered greatly. Apparently, the U.S. president doesn’t understand exponential growth. Consider how South Korea effectively handled the problem with test, trace, and treat.

      chocopot: In that case, every person on earth should be on lockdown forever since there are always contagious diseases on the loose somewhere on earth.

      Not every disease is both highly contagious and highly dangerous.

        chocopot in reply to Zachriel. | May 6, 2020 at 4:21 pm

        “Not every disease is both highly contagious and highly dangerous.”

        But many of them are. So I will say it again: your suggestion means that every person on earth would be on permanent lockdown for fear of catching or transmitting some contagious illness. It won’t work.

      Barry in reply to Zachriel. | May 6, 2020 at 11:15 pm

      “The word quarantine comes from the practice of isolating ships and their crews for 40 days just in case they might be carrying plague.”

      Actually commie, you’re making shit up again in an effort to see Americans enslaved.

      It’s an Italian word for quarantining ships for 40 days suspected of carrying the plague. “Quaranta” is the Italian word for 40.

      Not “in case” but because the ships were suspect.

Skipwatson1951 | May 6, 2020 at 9:09 am

Wow! A justice with common sense. Yes, Justice Bradley, that is EXACTLY the definition of tyranny. Good on you, ma’am, for having the courage to say that out loud.

“There is no stronger argument against electing judges than the Wisconsin Supreme Court.”

Yes, we must never let the proles have any say in who rules them. It must be us or no one.

chocopot: But many of them are.

Which diseases are both highly contagious, highly dangerous, and with community spread?

Tuberculosis, ebola, legionella, listeriosis, influenza, polio, dysentery, and many more.

    lawdoc: Tuberculosis, ebola, legionella, listeriosis, influenza, polio, dysentery, and many more.

    None of those are as contagious and dangerous and with community spread. For instance, ebola is not community spread in the U.S., while seasonal flu is not as contagious or as dangerous.

i watched some of the longer video. the state’s atty had a tough job. a few of the other justices pressed a similar line of argument.
in each instance the state’s atty seemed like he knew he was in a weak position. he was often using a circular argument. it was constitutional because it hadn’t been struck down.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend