Judge rules Michigan stay-at-home order doesn’t infringe on constitutional rights

Source< br />

A Michigan judge on Wednesday found that while Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s stay-at-home order does “temporary harm” to the constitutional rights of Michigan residents, the harm doesn’t outweigh the public health risk posed by the coronavirus outbreak.

The ruling appears to follow SCOTUS precedent in Jacobson v. Massachuesetts and Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health.

a reply to: links234

Yep, feelings won over the law as the quote states.

This concept of "temporary harm" is a fascinating one. So how many businesses that go out of business because of this imposed "temporary harm" can sue then for damages done in the violation of their constitutional rights? It would seem that would be some not-so-temporary harm. How about those who end up out of work and homeless because of the imposition of "temporary harm" done during this order?

a reply to: links234

It’s ok judge. My “insert crime here” only caused temporary harm.

Two tier legal system to keep the common person in check.

a reply to: ketsuko

Not sure if your question is merely rhetorical, and I'm not arguing for arguments sake because I am not well-versed in legal matters, but doesn't the concept of sovereign immunity preclude defunct businesses from suing the state or federal government?

Many, if not most, state governors have imposed moratoriums on evictions. It's not that it won't be a nightmare for renters and landlords alike when the smoke begins to clear, but at least there's some measure of protection against mass evictions.

a reply to: links234

What percentage of Michigan residents have died from covid-19 vs all other causes of death?

a reply to: carewemust

Deaths in MI

a reply to: neutronflux

Why of course. Happens all the time now. State officials and their family members can freely break the "Stay At Home" orders anytime, and then get testy if asked about it. However, according to this judge, you and I need to be aware of people who have "an interest to remain unharmed by a highly communicable and deadly virus.”

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) on Wednesday said it is “inappropriate” to question his wife’s whereabouts in response to reports that his billionaire spouse, M.K. Pritzker, left town, effectively dodging the state’s stringent stay-at-home orders by purportedly fleeing to their $12.1 million equestrian estate in South Florida.

Pritzker refused to address his wife’s whereabouts during Wednesday’s press briefing, calling it “inappropriate” and stating that it is “reprehensible” that the Patch reporter originally covered the story.

www.breitbart.com...

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and his wife Chirlane McCray were heckled in a Brooklyn park over the weekend after a man called them out for “nonessentially” traveling to the borough when they live in a park in Manhattan

“Seriously, you guys have a park. You live in the middle of a park. You don’t need to nonessentially travel to Brooklyn,” the man said in the video.

Mr. de Blasio and Mrs. McCray, who were both wearing face masks, started to walk away as the mayor responded, “Give it a break.”

www.washingtontimes.com...

Our governor is cherrypicking "Experts" to parrot what she believes and wants. Her policies do not match what the actual experts in the Federal agencies are saying, they evaluate everything, they are not just focusing on deaths at the moment. They look at the whole picture, how many people are dying because of her policies, people won't get the medical treatment they need because it is hard to get a regular appointment at the outpatient clinic or your doctors. More people are going to die of other causes than are dying of this Covid. There are hospital workers layed off in some places, workers who were doing necessary things. Is Whitmer going to blame these deaths that were caused by patients who did not get to see their doctor on Covid too. They will be her fault.

If I had chest pains, I sure would not be going to the outpatient clinic right now, I won't go to the emergency room unless I know it is an emergency. I use the outpatient clinic and you cannot go into that now. I only go to scheduled appointments with my doctor like once a year, it takes two weeks usually to get into see him. If I do go to the doctor other than that, it is usually serious, but not an emergency.

Hopefully I do not get sick before things get back to normal at the hospital where the clinic and my doctor are at.

If I were to rip open my leg by nicking it with the chainsaw....I will try to bandage it up since I cannot get to the clinic. You do not go to the emergency room unless it is an emergency, someone might really need their service, on top of that, the copay at the ER is three hundred bucks, the copay at the clinic is thirty. Just because I do something stupid and get hurt doesn't mean I am stupid enough to pay two hundred seventy bucks More out of pocket for the same thing.

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: carewemust

Deaths in MI

Thank you. I wonder what percentage that is of the overall number of Michigan residents.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Everyone who can afford to get away or stay at home should be allowed to do so if they are afraid of covid-19. The rest of us should be allowed to live our lives freely and normally as always.

Of course, and absolutely, "stay at home" infringes on everyone's Constitutional Rights! No doubt.

Unfortunately, laws were put into place, casually giving almost unlimited power to Governors and the President during a National Emergency. It gets really F'd up if Martial Law were to be enacted.

Those laws NEED TO BE CHANGED, either by the Legislature or the SCOTUS. It defies logic that anyone, especially the Justices on the SCOTUS could ever agree that infringing someone's right to assemble, which they are doing, is acceptable. And by curtailing your right to assemble, you curtail the right to protest together, or assemble to exercise you right to your religious services.

That all being said, maybe this isn't the pandemic of the century, but rest assured, the Justices of the SCOTUS will be thinking long and hard about the "what if". And they may just decide that the government, under the conditions of a serious pandemic with hundred of thousands of deaths, needs those powers. If that is the case, the Court needs to be extremely detailed about when that can happen.

Honestly, I don't know how this will turn out, but I hope the SCOTUS gets this right, and really gives this a good hard look, and are smart about it. We shall see.

The People lost this battle but the war isn't over yet. It might take some time but we WILL defeat this governor and she WILL know why. Not because of her party, but because of her politics. The Michigan legislature passed a bill limiting a governor's ability to call a state of disaster/emergency from 28 days unilaterally down to 14 and an extension must be passed by both houses or it won't happen. It'll be interesting to see where it goes from here along with other things that are in the works. She pissed away any good will she had with our legislature yesterday after her daily blather and a couple of emails that were sent out. I don't know what those said, but whatever it was royally irritated our congress and they're not taking it lying down.

The biggest mistake she made was thinking she is a dictator and can get away with telling us what we are going to do and not going to do. The second biggest mistake she made (so far) was making such horrible, disjointed decisions about what to close and what not to. Who to keep at home and who not to. Some are obvious, others were like throwing darts at balloons with a blindfold on. Fortunately some businesses were smart and figured out how to deliver their products/services without any close contact.

The seeds I bought despite her restrictions are sprouting now. By the time they're ready to plant outside the greenhouses will be open and I could buy plants there, but I have the satisfaction of watching them grow and disobeying this incredibly bad governor at the same time.

Many times, when a law is broken It only does temporary harm, but you still have to be responsible for your actions. Is the state willing to pay restitution for all losses incurred during this temporary infringement on our constitutional rights?

Ah, no. Whitmer wants to give free stuff away to as many as possible, not giving a rip about where the money is going to come from with all of the lost revenue.

Liberal judges do not believe that the Constitution exists.

There’s a huge difference between that supreme court case and our current situation .

In that ruling the people in question were thought to be sick already.

Never before have we quarantine huge amounts of healthy people to keep them from getting sick. We’ve always quarantined sick people to them from infecting the healthy .

That’s a hell of a big difference especially dealing with our constitutional rights .

a reply to: Butterfinger

CDC link really? The same people that said “mark all deaths as Covid19”.... as for the OP, that judge just set a precedent that would allow me to rob a bank, as long as it only causes “temporary harm” to those involved.

a reply to: links234

I've always been of a mind that your rights end where my rights begin and vice versa.

So does someones right to go out trump someone else's right to not get infected and possibly end up in the hospital or dead?

originally posted by: Fallingdown
There’s a huge difference between that supreme court case and our current situation .

In that ruling the people in question were thought to be sick already.

Never before have we quarantine huge amounts of healthy people to keep them from getting sick. We’ve always quarantined sick people to them from infecting the healthy .

That’s a hell of a big difference especially dealing with our constitutional rights .

That sounds like the way it should be, but this is too new, and you will need mass testing..which is probably still not available.