Objectively intelligent.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't think judges and justices should act in a political way. I think the job should be above politics.

I agree. I don't think they did. How do you know the 3 "dem" Judges weren't the ones acting political?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Nope 7-0

The Michigan Supreme Court issued a split decision late Friday that ruled against Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in a battle over her power to extend emergency declarations used to mandate COVID-19 restrictions over the last five months.

The court's opinion throws into question dozens of orders issued by Whitmer related to the coronavirus pandemic, appearing to void them. At the same time, however, since the decision came as a response to questions submitted to the court by a federal judge — and not as part of a state case before it — it wasn't immediately clear what would happen next or when it would take effect.

Whitmer issued a statement denouncing the decision.

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling, handed down by a narrow majority of Republican justices, is deeply disappointing, and I vehemently disagree with the court’s interpretation of the Michigan Constitution," she said.

* * * * *

The federal court asked the state Supreme Court to look at two questions: whether a 1945 law allowed the governor to issue executive orders related to the pandemic, and if a separate law the governor cited was constitutional.

The justices ruled 4-3 on both questions, with the majority arguing the governor did not have the authority under the 1945 law and the separate law was unconstitutional.

As is common, different judges agreed with different portions of the ruling. On the first question, Chief Justice Bridget McCormack joined justices David Viviano, Richard Bernstein and Markman in determining the governor did not have the authority to issues executive orders after April under the 1945 law. Justices Brian Zahra, Elizabeth Clement and Megan Cavanagh disagreed.

On the second questions, Markman joined Zahra, Clement and Viviano in determining the separate law Whitmer relied upon was unconstitutional. Viviano agreed with the ultimate ruling on this point, but disagreed with parts of the legal arguments presented.

In part, the ruling essentially determines that the Emergency Powers of Governor Act of 1945 — the law people signing petitions are trying to repeal — is unconstitutional because it "constitutes an unlawful delegation of legislative power to the executive."

Whitmer has relied on an interpretation of this emergency powers law and the Emergency Powers Act of 1976 to issue a litany of executive orders related to the pandemic. The orders mandated the closure of businesses and restricted the number of people allowed to gather at events, all in the name of safety and preventing the spread of coronavirus.

That's the Detroit Free Press. Maybe we are discussing different decisions?

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I agree. I don't think they did. How do you know the 3 "dem" Judges weren't the ones acting political?

When judges, during an emergency, decide that a statute that has been around for decades is unconstitutional, something seems fishy.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Maybe it had never been challenged before, because it previously hadn't been used except when actually necessary?

True. Maybe the statute is totally unconstitutional and the Democrats were playing politics by pretending not to notice. I can't speak to the merits.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That's the Detroit Free Press. Maybe we are discussing different decisions?

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/op...at/3607587001/

All seven justices agreed that Whitmer acted illegally by continuing a state of emergency without legislative approval, as is required by a 1976 law meant to guide the state’s response to epidemics. The Legislature had given approval for an extended state of emergency in the early days of the pandemic, but only until April 30. The governor ignored this statutory requirement, refused to work with the Legislature and plowed ahead anyway, continuing to unilaterally declare emergencies under the 1976 law.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/op...at/3607587001/

Sounds uncool, but the article I quoted seems to conflict with that, no? I don't know much about the News and the Free Press. Is one likelier to get this right?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sounds uncool, but the article I quoted seems to conflict with that, no? I don't know much about the News and the Free Press. Is one likelier to get this right?

https://courts.michigan.gov/Courts/M...estions-OP.pdf Time was the Free Press was dem and the News R, but the decision outcome is not something they'd screw up.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

https://courts.michigan.gov/Courts/M...estions-OP.pdf Time was the Free Press was dem and the News R, but the decision outcome is not something they'd screw up.

Well, News said it was a 7-0 decision and Free Press said it was two 4-3 decisions, so either they are talking about different things or someone is wrong, is the way I see it. YMMV.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Well, News said it was a 7-0 decision and Free Press said it was two 4-3 decisions, so either they are talking about different things or someone is wrong, is the way I see it. YMMV.

dude, she used two statutes.

A 1976 statute was abused, as it required legislative authorization to extend after 25 days. I think she kept "restarting" as if new rather than seeking authorization. That was knocked down 7-0, not the statute, but her actions under it.

The 1945 statute was found unconstitutional 4-3.