Re: Coronavirus
And the WI Supreme Court overruled their Gov's Stay-At-Home order and within hours several bars around the state were busy again with few safety/health adjustments. Tells me the Badgers will play, not worry about sanitizing anything and will fly commercial to all their games even when they could take a bus. Anyone tries to restrict them will simply be taken to court and overruled. Let the paint thinner flow! LOL!
Legally, the basis for the Court's ruling is nowhere near that 'sweeping'; politically, maybe more so, but Gov Evers was already moving in the "open things carefully" direction anyway.
Gov Evers and the State Health Officer have issued a number of "Stay at Home" type orders, with two or three 'major' ones. The first such order issued by the State Health Officer was preceded immediately by a "state of emergency" order from Evers, and it specifically referenced the Evers emergency order (the Health Officer is authorized to take the actions contained in the "Stay at Home" order by the fact of the "state of emergency" order). And the Court had and has no problem with that order, but it expired some time in April. The second such "Stay at Home" order, which was largely a time extension of the first order, did not *explicitly* refer to the Evers "state of emergency" order the way the first had, even though that "state of emergency" order remains in effect. And because of that, the Court ruled that the second order is not in fact an "order", but is rather a "rule". And because it is a "rule", there have to have been public hearings, and the legislature gets a say, etc etc.
Really. That's it. That's the basis of them striking down the order. Really!
Nothing about "constitutionality" or "governmental tyranny" or any such thing. In the middle of an effing pandemic, the majority on the Court is playing "Simon Says". Seriously! "You didn't say 'Evers says' so you lose the game."
I'm pretty sure that if they wanted to, Evers and the Health Officer could essentially re-issue the order with the "proper" references to the "state of emergency", and the Court would be OK with it (or they'd have to find some other absurd BS "reason" to knock it down). And if things go badly after the "re-opening" we might see that happen. But not right now.
(Note also that the Court's vote was 4-3, and that one of the conservative majority lost his re-election last month, and will be replaced by a more liberal justice on July 1 (I think). So 'next time', it might well be 4-3 the other way.)
You can probably tell I am HIGHLY annoyed by what the Court did here.