https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0...n-supreme-court.html

quote:

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the extension of a stay-at-home order by Gov. Tony Evers ...

... in a 4-to-3 ruling, the court said the measure had exceeded the authority given to Wisconsin’s top health official under state law.
...

The court ruling did not provide a mechanism for a stay ...

No "stay" in the ruling means the stay-at-home order is, in effect, immediately lifted.

Good luck, markj and his fellow Wisconsinites.

quote:

Originally posted by Axtremus:
No "stay" in the ruling means the stay-at-home order is, in effect, immediately.

Lets see how things look in two weeks.

Wisconsin has one of the great histories of liberalim in the US. Since ALEC and its puppet Scott Walker took it over, it seems to have gone to hell. Most recently the voting fiasco, now this. Don't get me wrong. Wisconsin is hardly unique in this kind of struggle. I can think of several other examples.

h/t 89th Key

quote:

“Bars opened up 10 minutes after the ruling. One bar had over 30 cars in the lot when I drove by. It's going to be like the wild west soon. Especially with MN bars closed. The groups will be driving over“

Idiots.

Here is one of those bars ...

Nick's Bar

Check link?

Hopefully, the sane folks will stay away from crowds and continue to be well. Not so good news for the health care folks at the last line of defense...

As a friend said recently... by definition, half the people are below the 50th percentile in IQ scores.....

quote:

Originally posted by wtg:
As a friend said recently... by definition, half the people are below the 50th percentile in IQ scores.....

The same principle applies to judgment and common sense.

quote:

Originally posted by wtg:
Check link?

Apparently Nick's Bar pulled it. But the Internet is forever, and Nick's Bar wasn't alone.

Bars Open

quote:

Originally posted by wtg:
As a friend said recently... by definition, half the people are below the 50th percentile in IQ scores.....

Don't forget that once lockdown restictions are lifted, it means an enormous class of people with an obligatory public interface (IOW, those without the option to work at home), will no longer be able to qualify for unemployment benefits*.

A MAJOR caveat to the claim that "sane" people may elect to stay home and remain cautious. Not "sane" but sane AND well provided for.

*Not that actually getting them is a piece of cake!

My youngest quit her part time job with zero benefits, after they re-opened retail establishments to permit no more than 5 people in, masks, mandatory, and the public would have none of it.

She, along with 90% of the staff, including the manager, walked out.

I am so happy that she stood up for what she knows is right. She loves working but not enough to risk her life, or ours.

Brava, msmarkj!

quote:

Originally posted by markj:
My youngest quit her part time job with zero benefits, after they re-opened retail establishments to permit no more than 5 people in, masks, mandatory, and the public would have none of it.

She, along with 90% of the staff, including the manager, walked out.

I am so happy that she stood up for what she knows is right. She loves working but not enough to risk her life, or ours.

Your daughter (a dependent without her own dependents) has the option of living at home or at least, the guaranteed support of devoted and well-off parents.

That is NOT the case of most or the people affected by the caveat I highlighted.

For instance, I have one son who has been working the whole time in a large bike repair shop, and delivering food from an organic farm (both considered "essential"). The second is perhaps less high-risk, but I worry a lot about the first despite their reputed attention to sanitation.

I am not in a position to take him in (which would also involve not only his losing his relatively well-paying jobs, but moving out of his shared apartment and basically supporting him in all ways.
Note that he lives hundreds of miles from me.

(Too bad his father who could easily subsidize him iin all ways, won't - but that's a long-standing issue with many ramifications. )

IOW your daughter's situation in being able to exercise her discretion about returning to work, is one of a fortunate minority. The millions who've applied for unemployment are having much financial trouble, but at least, they are relatively "out of harm's way" and most are eligible for unemployment.

Once governors' decisions do NOT rule (to open their states up or not), everyone will be forced to return to work or be unemployed. And without the safety net she has. Technically, that would exclude those testing positive or at high risk, but with the US's inadequate testing capacity that is not a foregone conclusion.

Even if they work in meat-packing plants, apparently, if Trump has his way!