High court strikes down Whitmer's emergency powers; gov vows to use other means
Whitmer argued her powers will remain in place for at least 21 days, an apparent reference to a 21-day period in which the governor can request a rehearing from the Michigan Supreme Court.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/10/02/michigan-supreme-court-strikes-down-gretchen-whitmers-emergency-powers/5863340002/
“...Whitmer argued her powers will remain in place for at least 21 days, an apparent reference to a 21-day period in which the governor can request a rehearing from the Michigan Supreme Court....”
****************************************************
I really don’t understand why something declared unconstitutional would not be ENDED IMMEDIATELY!
“Her Powers” - That’s what this has always been about.
Little dick-taters.
She’s a mean one, Mrs Grinch.
A virus is a virus and sooner or later you are going to come in contact with it, that's just the way is is. And when you do, you will either contract it or you won't and if you don't it's because you have some sort of immunity against it...........so her statement is wrong.
My nephew was sick with it for a couple of weeks but yet his live in fiance never caught it.............Immune?
Witless has said all along that she will not follow any court rulings. Remember the Barber that sued her?
Witless knows that she can do anything and nothing will happen to her. It is a shame that people will still obey her commands.
The only places paying any attention to that skank back home are the lemmings round Marquette MI and maybe Alger Co.
Her attorneys are not very good or she is not listening to them because no, if an act is unconstitutional, not only does she not have the power, but she never had the power. The vow to find other means violates a principal called collateral estoppel. She cannot relitigate the same set of facts, and all legal arguments as to why she had these powers needed to be raised before the courts or she waived the argument. Sure she can ask for a rehearing, but only to point out an error that the court made, not that her lawyers made, if any. And she can't act like she won or will win when she lost. Rehearing by the same court is rare and you have to provide clear arguments that the court made an error in its opinion that would affect the outcome.
Back and forth, back and forth.
“One to the other, one to the other”