Posted on 05/05/2020 4:23:39 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
A conservative justice on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court is questioning whether Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’s stay-at-home orders are the “definition of tyranny.”
Evers issued his first stay-at-home order on March 24 and then extended it on April 16. It is currently set to expire on May 26, but a case brought by Republican legislative leaders could scale it back immediately.
"My question for you is, where in the constitution did the people of Wisconsin confer authority on a single, unelected Cabinet secretary to compel almost 6 million people to stay at home and close their businesses and face imprisonment if they don't comply, with no input from the Legislature, without the consent of the people?" Justice Rebecca Bradley said during oral arguments heard via video conference, according to the Wisconsin State Journal.
"Isn't it the very definition of tyranny for one person to order people to be imprisoned for going to work, among other ordinarily lawful activities?" she added.
Bradley offered the remark after Assistant Attorney General Colin Roth of Wisconsin said “people will die” if the order is repealed with nothing to replace it.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Rebecca Bradley for global dictator.
You misread that. Darth Vader is played by Colin Roth.
tyranny and dictatorship is always in the name of some sort of real or imaginary benefits
but the benefits (as with this Lockdown) are usually mostly imaginary, and either way....
its still tyranny.
Well then look them up. If they're there then the Justice is an idiot. If they aren't there then the Assistant Attorney General is a liar.
Most of the governors view themselves as absolute monarchs. It’s time for the courts/People to pull hard on the leash.
And yet we have a so called Marine on this board who thinks none of this is even close to tyranny.
Thank God a much wiser person occupies a spot on the WI Supreme Court.
OM... did the other justices really use virtual Courtroom backrounds on Zoom?
Yes, hard enough to choke them to death.
There are a lot of Fearpers on this forum that would answer that question by saying it's in the "emergency powers" act, as if some obscure act by a legislature trumps the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution.
Three cheers for Rebecca Bradley.
Trump needs to consider her for a high court appointment.
If we stop for a moment and see this in perspective IMHO it means we no longer have God given rights secured by documents such as the US Constitution. The governors and judges have the power and allow a little to seep down to us at times.
We now have little tyrant camera hog governors with political ambitions, who take or grant rights to us little citizens, and then face judges who crush us or uplift us.
As: Trump seals borders in pause of terrorist countries admittance but judge stops that cold. Gretchen Whitmer upheld by a judge, another one said a governor’s edicts causing the “temporary loss of rights” aint so bad. All depends on the various judges now.
Is the SCOTUS going on another vacation after their laptop justice sessions are over? Wait 4 months for justice?
Spoiler alert! They are the definition of tyranny.
JoMa
Emergency Powers of a Governor is not an “obscure act.” It has proven to be a necessity throughout the last 150 years, irrespective of its current application in some states. Most notably in the Riots of the 60s and early 70s, major storms, forest fires, etc.
The Governor has loaded the State Depts with Obamabots and George SoreAss bots.
Hey, Paramount pictures and the ad council just told me it’s OK to be not OK. They said we were alone together.
Bump
“Emergency Powers of a Governor is not an “obscure act.” It has proven to be a necessity throughout the last 150 years...]
So you’re an advocate of its abuse? The scenarios you describe are small, specific to a localized area or to an event. It is heretofore never been imposed on the state as a whole, where the emergency-condition is scarcely present in most areas, and where the population is so devastatingly impacted by the official action more than the stated ‘emergency’ it seeks to protect them from.
The justice asked a prudent question and framed it perfectly.
please point out where anything I said advocates or supports abuse. Did you read all of my shirt post our just what you pasted. Which facts do you disagree with?
you failed to paste the rest of the sentence. here it is
.............irrespective of its current application in some states.
I hate those stupid “were all in this tougher” type ads. NO, we are not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.