[FRIAM] Wisconsin stay-at-home (safer at home) order overturned

Thu May 14 13:57:55 EDT 2020

On Maddow huh.... that would explain why so many of my more liberal
Facebook friends are spewing so much venom over the issue.... Did she ask
him *any *questions that required him to justify his interpretation of the
court's decision? Or have any assessment of what the court decision was,
separate from the Governor's complaining about it? (Honest questions, I
didn't see it.)

I really think of her as the Bill O'Reilly of the left. Not the Glen Beck
mind you, but the O'Reilly. In both cases, if they would just own how
biased their shows are, it would make the whole situation much better.

-----------
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist
American University - Adjunct Instructor
<echarles at american.edu>

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:21 PM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Interesting, EricC.
>
>
>
> Maddow had the governor on last night and he treated it as a complete
> renunciation of his authority.  “It’s the Wild West out there”, he said.
> As he presented it, the only resolution was for him to agree with the
> legislature on laws to govern the situation.
>
>
>
> Hmmmmm!
>
>
>
> N
>
>
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Eric Charles
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2020 10:14 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Wisconsin stay-at-home (safer at home) order
> overturned
>
>
>
> The news coverage of this has been odd. The order is definitely *not*
> countering a "governor's stay-at-home order", which is what I see most
> people saying. The governor took emergency powers, made a few orders
> directly, and then instructed the Health Secretary to take the lead on
> state-wide response. The Health Secretary then issued several orders under
> her own signatory authority, only one of which was challenged (Order 28).
> The ruling is that *that particular order* was so broad and general as to
> count as executive branch rule making, which has its own set of rules,
> including a period of time for review by the legislature.
>
>
>
> Full decision:
>
> https://evers.wi.gov/Documents/COVID19/EMO28-SaferAtHome.pdf
>
>
>
> From the opinion of the court, paragraph 1:
>
> This case is about the assertion of power by one unelected official,
> Andrea Palm, and her order to all people within Wisconsin to remain in
> their homes, not to travel and to close all businesses that she declares
> are not "essential" in Emergency Order 28. Palm says that failure to obey
> Order 28 subjects the transgressor to imprisonment for 30 days, a $250 fine
> or both. This case is not about Governor Tony Evers' Emergency Order or the
> powers of the Governor.
>
>
>
> From paragraph 7:
>
> On April 16, 2020, Palm issued Emergency Order 28, also titled "Safer at
> Home Order." This order was not issued by the Governor, nor did it rely on
> the Governor's emergency declaration. Rather, it relied solely on "the
> authority vested in [Andrea Palm, Department of Health Services
> Secretary-designee] by the Laws of the State, including but not limited to
> [Wis. Stat. §] 252.02(3), (4), and (6)." Emergency Order 28 commands all
> individuals in Wisconsin "to stay at home or at their place of residence"
> with certain limited exceptions approved by Palm or risk punishment "by up
> to 30 days imprisonment, or up to $250 fine, or both." 8 Order 28 also:
>
> * Prohibits "[a]ll forms of travel" except what Palm deems essential.
>
> * Orders "[a]ll for-profit and non-profit businesses" to "cease all
> activities" except for minimum operations that Palm deemed basic.
>
> * Prohibits "[a]ll public and private gatherings of any number" "not part
> of a single household."
>
> * Declares that all public and private K-12 schools "shall remain closed"
> for the remainder of the year.
>
> * Declares that libraries shall remain closed for "all inperson services."
>
> * Declares all "public amusement and activity" places closed regardless of
> whether "indoors or outdoors" except golf courses (with restrictions). The
> order says "Driving ranges and miniature golf must remain closed."
>
> * Continues the ordered closure of all salons and spas.
>
> * Continues the closure of every restaurant and bar except for take-out or
> delivery service.
>
> * Orders religious groups to limit gatherings to "fewer than 10 people in
> a room" including weddings and funerals.
>
> * Imposes a six-foot social distancing requirement for any person not
> "residing in a single living unit or household."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 10:55 AM Steven A Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
>
> Friammers -
>
> Mary's daughter, who lives in Wisconsin alerted us to the big
> court-decision overturning the governor's stay-at-home order:
>
>
> https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/wisconsin-supreme-court-strikes-down-stay-at-home-order/article_fd2be344-666f-5437-8955-f5cd9ae17a50.html
>
> *In a concurring opinion, Kelly said the court’s decision hinged on
> determining the extent of Palm’s authority, not whether her emergency order
> was a good idea.*
>
> *“The order may be a brilliantly conceived and executed response to
> COVID-19,” Kelly said. “Either way, that is not the question before the
> court.”*
>
> I'm (nicely?) split on issues like this and I think this last quote really
> says a lot.   I understand that 2 or more counties immediately issued their
> own "safer at home" order matching the one repealed at the state level.
> I'm not clear on whether a similar "overreach of authority" will ultimately
> be decided against those.
>
>
>
> Anecdotally, in the meantime, many bars have opened and apparently many
> patrons have returned (without masks and not observing social distancing
> guidelines).
>
>
>
> This seems like a good test bed of some of the assumptions behind Dave's
> "prophecy".   Will the (if we believe in the germ theory and network
> transmission) uptick in cases resulting from this lead to a continuation of
> the pandemic (or "pandemic" if we prefer to believe the only uncontrolled
> growth is in hysterical media coverage and hypochondria).   The best case
> (and one I mostly hope for) might be if the subset of the WI population who
> now disregard the (former) rules is small enough and insular (only
> infecting one another) enough and/or the herd immunity has grown enough
> (highest estimates in places like NYC I think are still down as low as 20%
> out of the believed 70% required to bring R0 below 1.0 w/o
> masks/social-distance measures?).
>
>
>
> Given that the courts may well be accurate in their interpretation of the
> limits to the governor's powers, I would expect a domino of challenges
> across republican-majority courts in other states, and a subsequent surge
> in the unrestricted opening of businesses and events.
>
>
>
> I find a bit of cognitive/emotional/spiritual dissonance in trying to hold
> all three of the following in my head/heart/soul at the same time:
>
>    1. The rule of law is important in our society and if a governor does
>    not have the right to shut down as hard as some have, then that needs to be
>    acknowledged and reversed.
>    2. There is a lot of evidence suggesting that like Kelly above is
>    quoted that "the order may be a brilliantly conceived and executed
>    response... " and that reversing it in fact as well as in law may well
>    yield a significant increase in R0 in those states (and among states who
>    have significant mixing *with* those states), possibly putting us back
>    close to where we were in late March.
>    3. I don't like the idea of telling others what to do (wholesale), nor
>    being told what to do (specifically), but I also recognize that we do not
>    live isolated, solitary lives, and "what we do matters".  My threshold on
>    accepting secondary and tertiary consequences may be above "helmet and
>    seatbelt laws" but below "measures to suppress epidemic spread of deadly
>    disease".   But how does that jive with my threshold for accepting "limits
>    to personal agency and volition"?
>
> These are indeed, interesting times, and as with the basis of Dave's
> prophecy, "only time will tell"...  and with Glen's "put a pin in it", I
> just hope we keep track and pay attention to how well our
> prophecies/projections/forecasts play out.
>
> - Steve
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
> .... . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
> .... . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200514/e80ff997/attachment.html>