Re:Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down stay-at-home order t...
by cryptonector on Thursday May 14, 2020 @01:10PM
(#23182208)
Your view displays no nuance and no understanding of the decision[0], which clearly does not invalidate 252.02 and does not deny the Department of Health the powers it has been granted by the Legislature. All it does is recognize that other parts of Wisconsin code also apply:
- 227.01 and 227.24:
> We conclude that Emergency Order 28 is a rule under the controlling precedent of this court, Citizens for Sensible Zoning, Inc. v. DNR, 90 Wis.2d 804, 280 N.W.2d 702 (1979), and therefore is subject to statutory emergency rulemaking procedures established by the Legislature. Emergency Order 28 is a general order of general application within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §227.01(13), which defines "Rule." Accordingly, the rulemaking procedures of Wis. Stat. §227.24 were required to be followed during the promulgation of Order 28.
- 252.25:
> Furthermore, Wis. Stat. §252.25 required that Emergency Order 28be promulgated using the procedures established by the Legislature for rulemaking if criminal penalties were to follow,as we explain fully below. Because Palm did not follow the law in creating Order 28, there can be no criminal penalties for violations of her order. The procedural requirements of Wis. Stat. ch. 227 must be followed because they safeguard all people.
I.e., Emergency Order 28 is not even necessarily overturned, rather, "there can be no criminal penalties" for violating it. Moreover, rulemaking procedures of chapter 227 can still be engaged and Emergency Order 28 (or a new order) can still come into full force if those procedures are followed.
You are either being ignorant / insufficiently careful (did not read the opinion, did not parse it, did not understand it, did not educate yourself -- one of those) or else you are displaying the "extreme partisanship" that you accuse the Court of. Court opinions that we disagree with, unless they are repugnant like Plessy vs Ferguson, are deserving of a minimum of respect, and even when they are repugnant to you, they may nonetheless be the law of the land for some time, so a more constructive take is to see how to work around a decision you disagree with. In this case the Court not only does not preclude your preferred outcome, but shows you how to get it: follow 227.24 in the process of promulgating the emergency order.
- 227.01 and 227.24:
> We conclude that Emergency Order 28 is a rule under the controlling precedent of this court, Citizens for Sensible Zoning, Inc. v. DNR, 90 Wis.2d 804, 280 N.W.2d 702 (1979), and therefore is subject to statutory emergency rulemaking procedures established by the Legislature. Emergency Order 28 is a general order of general application within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §227.01(13), which defines "Rule." Accordingly, the rulemaking procedures of Wis. Stat. §227.24 were required to be followed during the promulgation of Order 28.
- 252.25:
> Furthermore, Wis. Stat. §252.25 required that Emergency Order 28be promulgated using the procedures established by the Legislature for rulemaking if criminal penalties were to follow,as we explain fully below. Because Palm did not follow the law in creating Order 28, there can be no criminal penalties for violations of her order. The procedural requirements of Wis. Stat. ch. 227 must be followed because they safeguard all people.
I.e., Emergency Order 28 is not even necessarily overturned, rather, "there can be no criminal penalties" for violating it. Moreover, rulemaking procedures of chapter 227 can still be engaged and Emergency Order 28 (or a new order) can still come into full force if those procedures are followed.
You are either being ignorant / insufficiently careful (did not read the opinion, did not parse it, did not understand it, did not educate yourself -- one of those) or else you are displaying the "extreme partisanship" that you accuse the Court of. Court opinions that we disagree with, unless they are repugnant like Plessy vs Ferguson, are deserving of a minimum of respect, and even when they are repugnant to you, they may nonetheless be the law of the land for some time, so a more constructive take is to see how to work around a decision you disagree with. In this case the Court not only does not preclude your preferred outcome, but shows you how to get it: follow 227.24 in the process of promulgating the emergency order.
[0] https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?cont...