Jailbreak

Wisconsin Supreme Court Strikes Down Stay-at-Home Order.

This comprehensive claim to control virtually every aspect of a person’s life is something we normally associate with a prison, not a free society governed by the rule of law.”

– Justice Daniel Kelly, one of the appellate judges who decided the case.

 
“Within hours of the ruling, some taverns were making plans for reopening, the governor’s office said.”

This entry was posted in COVID-19, Rule of law, Take Nanny down. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Jailbreak

  1. Up The Workers!

    It would be ironic if Justice Daniel Kelly now came down with a lethal dose of the Peking Pox as a direct result of his own decision.

    By the way, has anybody heard any update on the state-of-health of that mullah who instructed all members of his faith to lick the door handles of the local mosque, after applying the ‘magical anus ointment’ he was selling?

    Last I heard, he had come down with a bad case of the Peking Pox in following his own ‘progressive’ advanced medical advice, and was sick as a dog.

  2. Bad Samaritan

    UTW (6.02am). Ironical in what way?

    Would it be ironical that I agree with cars doing 100 on the freeway and then have someone crash into me at 100kph? Or that i go bushbashing alone and then break a leg and have to drag myself out alone too?

    Or put a hundred on nag and it comes in last?

    Nah; personal responsibility means personal responsibility and has very little to do with irony. Unless accepting the realitytaht winning and losing are both part of life; a thing which no-one gets out of alive no matter how much ya try to avoid it.

  3. Peter Finch, I'm Mad as Hell

    Given there is a pay wall for this article’s source could someone post a little more info? My thanks in anticipation of your help.

  4. yarpos

    Nice line from Judge Daniel Kelley. I wonder if their Daniel could give our Daniel a call?

  5. Peter Finch, I'm Mad as Hell

    UTW “lick the door handles of the local mosque, after applying the ‘magical anus ointment’ he was selling?”

    Just desserts?

  6. Iampeter

    This comprehensive claim to control virtually every aspect of a person’s life is something we normally associate with a prison, not a free society governed by the rule of law.

    And everyone will be supporting the controlling of every aspect of a person’s life again when they try to cross a border, or higher from overseas, or do business with someone in another country, etc.
    In fact many opponents of the lock-downs haven’t changed any of their positions at all, rendering their opposition to the lock-downs nonsensical.
    Conservatives tend to throw concepts like “free society” around when they disagree with a governments policies for random reasons and then sneeringly dismiss it when they agree with a governments policies for random reasons.
    I guess when you have no political ideology behind your positions on what a government should/shouldn’t be doing then that’s all you can do.

  7. C.L.

    Given there is a pay wall for this article’s source could someone post a little more info? My thanks in anticipation of your help.

    Peter, the government of Wisconsin was taken to court over the legality of its lockdown of the populace. The state Supreme Court found for the applicants. The court ruled the lockdown illegal.

  8. Docket62

    Given there is a pay wall for this article’s source

    Either in Chrome or Safari: Copy the link of the paywall blocked item, then open a new secure window (In Safari use the icon on the right, use the Plus sign and then select private) in Chrome: right menue, sélect ‘new incognito’

    Then paste the URL into the private browser window. This will by pass all paywalls

  9. rickw

    For any Western Government that is actually obeying their own Laws and Constitution, the only legitimate lever they have is Border Control.

    That is ALL. Everything else is massive overreach.

    This overreach stems from the absurd and pervasive idea that it is Governments job to protect everyone from everything. It is not, and it is not even true for the most obvious issue of protecting people from criminals, try suing the police for slow or no attendance to an emergency call.

  10. Tim Neilson

    And everyone will be supporting the controlling of every aspect of a person’s life again when they try to cross a border,

    Border controls aren’t a control on “every” aspect of someone’s life. To the extent that they do “control” some aspect of a foreigner’s life, they’re well within the rights of the country concerned. They’re identical in quality to private property owners choosing who they do or don’t admit to their land.

    This can be proved by two examples.

    No.1
    (a) When I lock my gate at night am I depriving others of their rights?
    (b) If a club with, say, about 1500 members who (via a company structure) jointly own their freehold say that their premises are a members and members’ guests only area, are they depriving others of their rights?
    (c ) When the Melbourne Cricket Club, with about 100,000 members, say that their premises are a members and members’ guests only area, are they depriving others of their rights?
    (d) If, say, Nauru, with a population of about 12,000, declared that it had a dual character, both nation state and private club, and declared its borders closed not in a government capacity but in the capacity of joint owners of club property, would they be they depriving others of their rights?
    (e) If any other nation state likewise closed its borders in a self-proclaimed dual capacity as a private club, would they be depriving others of their rights?
    (f) If a nation closes its borders without going through the formality of declaring itself to have a self-proclaimed dual capacity as a private club, would they be depriving others of their rights?

    Correct answer: none of the above infringe any real “right” of the persons excluded. Any attempt to distinguish between them is bullshit.

    Case study 2

    Mediaeval England, governed by the feudal system, in which powers of local, regional and national government are largely coterminous with private land ownership (see Maitland’s Constitutional History of England).

    (a) If a yeoman holding freehold socage tenure orders person X off his land, is he depriving X of his rights?
    (b) if the local squire, who owns the manor (i.e is as landowner is owed socage tenure duties by the yeomanry and copyholders, but owes feudal duties to the mesne lord) orders that X is not allowed on his land (i.e. anywhere on the manor) is he depriving X of his rights?
    (c ) If the mesne lord, as landowner of all his manors (i.e. is owed feudal duties by each local squire, but himself owes knights’ services to the King’s tenant in chief) orders that X is not allowed on his land (i.e. anywhere on any of the manors of which his land is comprised) , is he depriving X of his rights?
    (d) If a peer of the realm as landowner by right of being the King’s tenant in chief (i.e. being owed knights’ service by mesne lords, but himself owing military service to the King) orders that X is not allowed on his land (i.e. anywhere in the county, shire, borough or other subdivision of land of which he is lord) , is he depriving X of his rights?
    (e) If the King, as ultimate owner of all land in the kingdom, orders that X is not allowed anywhere in his realm, is he depriving X of his rights?

    Correct answer: none of the above infringe any real “right” of the persons excluded. Any attempt to distinguish between them is bullshit.

    This proves that Iamashiteater is talking shit as usual.

  11. Iampeter

    To the extent that they do “control” some aspect of a foreigner’s life, they’re well within the rights of the country concerned.

    Yea that’s what the lock-down advocates are concerned with too. Some collectivist and leftist notion of “rights of the country.” That’s my point.
    Just like conservatives have no grounds on which to criticizing the trans agenda, so they have no grounds on which to criticize these lock-downs.

    I look forward to your response which will be along the lines of “I wasn’t advocating for “rights of the country,” I wasn’t expressing a position one way or the other!” Such a response will render your post pointless.

    This can be proved by two examples.

    No, it can’t. If you want to prove a position in a political argument, you need an actual political argument and it needs to be based on a supporting political ideology. Not random examples or “case studies.”

  12. Professor Fred Lemin

    These restrictions are required to prevent masses of people from getting sick being off work and not paying taxes to keep the economy going ,oh wait ,mmmh the borrpwings are needed to pay people to stay away from work to avoid being effected and not being able to work and pay taxes see ?. Cheese ! that dont work either emm the answer is much more cpmplicated than that ,yes release that to the media comrade , its much more complicated than that . bloody brilliant answer ,keep that one for the next hairy questionShazza ,

    The Vic Minister or Information and Truth ,taped in his office ,

  13. Tim Neilson

    I said This can be proved by two examples.

    Iamashiteater said No, it can’t. If you want to prove a position in a political argument, you need an actual political argument and it needs to be based on a supporting political ideology. Not random examples or “case studies.”

    Thus Iamashiteater proves himself to have zero understanding of logic.

    A fundamental rule of logic is that a generality can be disproved by even a single example which is inconsistent with the generality. The classic expression of that rule is that “all swans are white” can be disproved by the existence of a single black swan.

    Thus, if a single example proves that Iamashiteater’s denial of the validity of border controls is logically unworkable,then that denial has been proved to be false.
    And each of my examples does just that.

    And labelling the example “random” is basically admitting intellectual defeat. Even if the black swan had been selected “randomly” it would still disprove the “all swans are white” theorem. Actually of course my examples are far from random but it wouldn’t matter if they were. They still prove incontrovertibly that Iamashiteater’s denial of the validity of border controls is utter bullshit.

    Poor old logic fail also fails in thinking that in order to prove his bloviations are bullshit I have to outline an alternative theory. That’s bullshit. The “black swan” of my examples proves Iamashiteater to be full of shit irrespective of what, if any, generalisation I might think should be adopted in place of his shit. The idea that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones was disproved well before anyone articulated a mathematical formula for gravitational attraction.

  14. Tim Neilson

    Some collectivist and leftist notion of “rights of the country.” That’s my point.

    A country doesn’t have “rights”?

    Let’s do the old “all swans are white”/”here’s a black swan” two step.

    On what grounds does a court have power to impose a sentence on a convicted criminal?

    Might it be asserted that the crime is punishable because it infringed some individual’s rights? Often the crime will infringe an individual’s rights. But it is a basic principle of criminal law that the victim has no power to give a legally enforceable pardon to the criminal. Why is that? Because it is seen as being in the interests of the state for the criminal to be punished.
    Thus, anyone who claims that a state has no rights is asserting that the criminal law is not justifiably enforceable.

    Consider also, for example of the crime of disclosing state secrets to a hostile nation? That doesn’t look like it infringes any individual’s rights.
    Might it be argued that that still infringes the right of every citizen of the country not to have detrimental things done to them, and that justifies the criminalisation of the activity and the consequent punishment?

    Maybe so. But that just begs the question of whether the state has a right to act to protect the rights of its citizens. Answer – it must do.

    And surely that applies to any circumstance when the state acts to protect the right of its citizens not to be subjected to externally sourced harm ” E.g. someone who tries to cross the border of a country when the country concerned has legislated for that to be illegal, on the grounds that the foreigner’s entry is believed to be detrimental to the citizens?

    Accordingly we see again that claiming that a state has no “rights” is untenable.

    Once again, Iamshiteater’s dogmatic absolutist bloviation has been exposed as bullshit by simple logic.

  15. Lee

    Just like conservatives have no grounds on which to criticizing the trans agenda, so they have no grounds on which to criticize these lock-downs.

    Yes I can, and do.

  16. Iampeter

    Yes I can, and do.

    Right, but you’re doing so without any politically literate arguments, or even basic logic.

Comments are closed.