Re: Is Hank Playing for the Other Team?
 

I'm not a wolverine anything. Even if I was psycho I'd have to join a group with some other name, preferably "Spartan" something or other.

You get outside Metro Detroit, this state is full of some fucked up people. So is Metro Detroit, but in a different way. The Gov's orders were thrown out by the Supreme Court a few days ago as an over reach (must have legislative support). They "expire" 21 days after the ruling. She says she has other ways to keep them in place. Some cities are now starting to issue mask orders. It might get nuts here if she tries to ignore the Court with new orders.

Re: Is Hank Playing for the Other Team?
 

My understanding is that it's not exactly that the Governor's orders were thrown out, it's that a Republican state Supreme Court decided that state statutes which give the governor emergency powers and have been around for decades are unconstitutional. In other words, it's not that Whitmer abused her powers -- it's that the Legislature did something unconstitutional decades ago. Hard to imagine a Republican court doing that to a Republican governor during an emergency that is killing people.

Re: Is Hank Playing for the Other Team?
 

Our Supreme Court is elected, and technically not affiliated with a party (although nominated by a party). The real hold up was the legislature that would have been needed to approve her actions. It is R and would not do it. So she was acting as a dictator. And there were large parts of the state with few cases that she shut down. In a good light the R wouldn't approve because she was asking for overbroad restrictions. In a bad light they wouldn't approve because the loons who hated the restrictions vote for them. But either way, she had no authority to just keep stuff shut down. Are you saying you want to see an example of an executive who can't get stuff done through Congress start bypassing it and just ordering stuff?

Re: Is Hank Playing for the Other Team?
 

True if you assume that the statute (which, again, had been around for decades) was unconstitutional, which was the question for the court. But that was the question. If you just look at the law on the books, she very arguably had the authority to do what she did.

This is not the first time that Republicans have invented new constitutional theories about what the government can't do in order to thwart a Democratic executive acting to solve a problem that everyone gets is a problem. Hello Obamacare.

I'm sorry, that's crazy. She acted according to laws that had been on the books for a long time. How does that make her a dictator?

She wasn't asking for anything. The legislature, long ago, gave the governor the power to do certain things. She saw a problem, and used those powers. They disagreed on policy grounds -- and, hey, maybe they were right! -- and interpreted the state constitution in a way to scrap the statutes.

That's not exactly right. There was a facially plausible argument that the legislature had already given her that authority, in the Emergency Powers of Governor Act of 1945 and he Emergency Powers Act of 1976. The Court decided that the 1945 law was unconstitutional because it was an unlawful delegation of legislative power to the executive.

Either way, that's *not* an executive who can't get stuff done through Congress and is bypassing it and ordering stuff.

Re: Is Hank Playing for the Other Team?
 

I believe they voted 7-0 she had no authority under the 1976 act, so she is not perfect here. And she did get legislative approval for the early orders.

She tried for later orders, but her seed could find no purchase. She is most certainly an executive who can't get stuff through congress so is bypassing it. And I really don't get your focus on a court not simply accepting an act of congress as being somehow wrong. Do you not believe Roe v. Wade is good law? Ty, I ask you, do you disagree with Marbury v. Madison?

I mean I support her orders, though the first she explained, "flattening the curve" with an expected "low
boil" there after. That made sense. But the subsequent orders were not explained in any similar fashion.

What is the end game here? She never tried to justify what the emergency was the made it necessary to keep stuff locked up. I get COVID is bad, but won't it be as bad next month? Again, I don't personally care about the orders, but if you want your public to accept the devastation being done to business, and personal lives, you better explain why the shit is necessary. She didn't. And since Covid will seemingly be as bad when the orders are lifted, her orders seemed quite arbitrary. This has nothing to do with the Court's decision, but if she had explained I'm not sure she would have attracted so much grief. And the 1945 act is on the ballot for repeal. An act that was abused beyond its intend, but one that was important when needed, would possibly have been gone anyway because of how she handled it.

As to the constitutional q, the law was unconstitutional BECAUSE THE COURT SAID IT WAS. I know you understand that?

conf to RT: Ty seems to have moved to extreme positions. I suggest a "no confidence" vote be taken for his continued role as admin?

edit: Ty, you seem to think the act did/could give her absolute authority to define "emergency?" Does Trump have any emergency powers? Are you comfortable with his definition? Fuck out of here.

Re: Is Hank Playing for the Other Team?
 

By the way, I seldom reply to the same post twice, but since the 4 "Republican" Judges can be seen as misguided by politics, why can't the Dem Governor? They were all elected by the entire state. It was not a Gerrymandered* outcome. You're saying the 4 Judges, that the state entrusted with interpreting the Constitution, should be seen as suspect because they disagreed with how the Dem Gov interpreted a statute? Fuck out of here.

*the only gerrymandering is that Ohio stole Toledo from us, and thus took away a likely blue medium sized city.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Trifecta!

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Realclearpolitics.com has Senate 47 D 46 R with 7 "toss ups." 4 of those seem safe D, 2 seem safe R and SC is a true toss up.

Re: Is Hank Playing for the Other Team?
 

I think there was a 4-3 vote that one of the statutes she was applying was unconstitutional, and another 4-3 (judges splitting a different way) vote against her on statutory interpretation.

No, but I see a lot of Republicans prone to legislating from the bench.

I get that. My point is, a slim majority from the political party antagonistic to the governor decided that (excuse me, SAID IT WAS) several decades after the law was passed. When a statute has fundamental constitutional problems, it is more commonly noticed much earlier.

If Trump has emergency powers given to him by statute -- for example, to spend money that Congress appropriated for one thing on a completely different thing, like a wall, because he says it's an emergency -- and a court upholds those powers, it's on Congress to change the law. Or are you making a constitutional argument of some sort? Not sure what you are trying to say.

I'm not familiar with the Michigan constitution, so can't say whether Whitmer's position was right. I can say that (a) the fact that she got three of the seven justices to support her, and (b) the fact that the statute deemed unconstitutional had been around for decades without being deemed unconstitutional, both suggest that her position was not crazy. Doesn't sound authoritarian to me.

Re: Is Hank Playing for the Other Team?
 

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

No, not what I was saying.

Re: Is Hank Playing for the Other Team?
 

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

Re: Is Hank Playing for the Other Team?
 

Nope 7-0




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

Re: Is Hank Playing for the Other Team?
 

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

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


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.

Re: Is Hank Playing for the Other Team?
 

Are your Supreme Court races actually contested? Ours rarely are. Justices retire midterm, the governor appoints a temporary replacement, who,is almost always re-elected, often without a real opponents.

Re: Is Hank Playing for the Other Team?