This is like satire.
How can it be possible that you don’t have a right to walk around in public? What does that even mean?
This judge fancies himself an epidemiologist, but regardless of how dangerous you think the virus might be, there is nothing in the Constitution that allows for all rights to be suspended because people are afraid of a virus.
A Michigan judge on Wednesday found that while Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s stay-at-home order does “temporary harm” to the constitutional rights of Michigan residents, the harm doesn’t outweigh the public health risk posed by the coronavirus outbreak.
Steve Martinko, owner of an Oakland County landscaping business, and four other Michigan residents filed a lawsuit against the governor and other state officials claiming the stay-at-home order infringes on their constitutional rights and should be declared invalid. The “mandatory quarantine” and in-state travel restrictions violate due process rights, the plaintiffs argued.
Michigan Court of Claims Judge Christopher Murray ruled in favor of Whitmer, Attorney General Dana Nessel and Department of Natural Resources Director Daniel Eichinger on Wednesday, April 29.
“Our fellow residents have an interest to remain unharmed by a highly communicable and deadly virus,” Murray wrote in his opinion. “And since the state entered the Union in 1837, it has had the broad power to act for the public health of the entire state when faced with a public crisis.”
The stay-at-home order was first put in place March 24, suspending activities “not necessary to sustain or protect life.” It’s been extended through May 15 – with fewer restrictions.
Nothing is preventing “our fellow citizens” from staying home if they are afraid of the virus.
All that this lockdown is doing is forcing people who either aren’t vulnerable to the virus or do not care for whatever reason from living their lives normally.
There was never any threat to people who were afraid. If those people are afraid, they can stay home.
This is all pure nanny state insanity, where the mommy government tells people it’s her job to protect them for their own good.
Framing it as though the lockdown protects people who are afraid of the virus is insane. It simply takes away the rights of people who are not afraid of the virus.
That is what we are asking: where did the government get the right to enforce their view on what is or is not healthy and safe onto the public?
Forcing Whitmer to end the stay-at-home order would not “serve in the public interest,” Murray ruled.
The plaintiffs in the Court of Claims case also attacked Michigan’s Emergency Management Act for giving the governor “uncontrolled, arbitrary power.” Murray disagreed, saying the act lays out specific procedures and criteria for the governor to declare a state of emergency.
“I am pleased with the court’s decision,” Nessel said in a news release. “This pandemic has already taken more than 3,600 lives in Michigan and many more around the world. The primary goal of the Stay Home, Stay Safe order has always been to protect human life.”
Following this theory, the government has the right to ban anything that they deem to be potentially dangerous.
Does anyone think the government has that right?
Where does that end?
Do you know how many people die in car crashes every year? What about workplace accidents? How about cigarettes and alcohol?
But this brings us to the obvious: what about unhealthy food, which is the number one killer in the United States?
I’m no statistician, but I’m pretty sure 647,000 is a bigger number than that which has died from coronavirus, and those are virtually all preventable deaths.
I do think the food industry should be more regulated than it is, but I don’t think anyone anywhere is arguing that the government should go into fat people’s homes and prevent them from eating too much – even though they would save hundreds of thousands of lives by doing so.
Plaintiffs also argued Whitmer should have only quarantined people who have the virus, or impose restrictions on certain regions of the state.
“Monday morning quarterbacking is the role of sports fans, not courts reviewing the factual basis supporting executive action to protect the public health,” Murray said. “Instead, it is the role of the executive and legislative branches to determine what steps are necessary when faced with a public health crisis.”
Yeah, that’s really cute, judge.
But a lot of people are not in the mood for cute little comments from judges who are telling them they have no freedoms and they just have to accept that they’re going to be homeless and hungry in a few months.
I know I’m not in the mood for that.