Could a Supreme Court decision open the door to legal sanctions?
Michigan’s governor continues to violate the law.
Tomorrow begins that part of the process where our state’s highest court decides whether it agrees with our laws and constitution. It will decide whether it will join the executive branch and perform legal ju-jitsu to ‘protect’ Michigan citizens from the pandemic, or whether it will take the absolute legal and uncomfortable route of holding each of the branches to the purposefully limited and separated authority they wield.
There are reasons each branch of our government hold powers that are separate and distinct. This pandemic has very much revealed what happens when that separation is not upheld immediately. People through no act of their own will die needlessly.
A case before the Michigan Supreme Court suggest as much. An opinion piece in USA today highlights the plaintiff’s many concerns for the patients under his care.
One of my patients came to see me when he felt like he had nowhere else to turn. The governor’s orders prevented him from getting regular treatment for his diabetes. By the time he came to me, he was in a full-on medical emergency. He told me about an odor coming from his foot — it turned out to be gangrene. His kidneys were in full-blown failure.
We rushed him to the nearest hospital, but it was too late. His foot had to be amputated. And then, just days later, he died from complications.
None of this trauma had to happen. But happen it did, because of shortsighted executive orders issued unilaterally by Gov. Whitmer.
Irresponsible action from the governor, and the slow-to-act courts have resulted in misery and death for Michiganians.
Add to this the already huge death numbers of those exposed to the China virus in nursing homes due to the governor’s actions, it should give pause to those who think government protects us in any meaningful way. Clearly we cannot put our faith in those who are willing to break the law, if even ‘for our own good.’
Malfeasance and criminal disregard for the law must have consequence.
Such a concept is no stranger to the rest of us. Should it give pause to the state’s highest court as deliberations are made? Should the court waffle in it’s responsibilities in order to protect the sanctity of absolute government authority, or should it uphold the law which renders government leaders accountable and responsible?
And should an affirmative verdict that the governor has broken the law be issued, what are the consequences? What should they be?
We know. We know what the answer is.
And it should never have to be decided in such a way again.
(24)Nuh Uh.
(0)
All Governor's and Mayors should be held accountable for their actions. They should be charged with Tyranny and Treason, and should be put on trial and convicted, and then publicaly hung for their actions. Sounds extreme, but this should never be allowed to happen again, and this "extreme" would send the right message.
The Michigan Supreme Court verdict notwithstanding, the best is still yet to come.
There is a VERY compelling reason for democrats to oppose the re-election of President Trump.
On, the plus side, Nessel & Whitmer can spend a lot of "quality time" together as cellmates.
Another $1.1M pissed away on the fat, greasy-forehead, slob hypocrite.
https://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/anti-border-fence-mich-gov-whitmer-building-8-foot-high-electrified-fence
She belongs in jail.
My wife says that every night.
Watched all 4 plus hrs of the Supreme Ct oral arguments today. It was interesting in that it was the first time for me seeing this crew in action. Justice Zahra was interesting. The attorney for the Gov. was apparently the smartest guy in the room, just ask him. Zahra nicked him a couple of times, and the nicks went over his head. Justice Bernstein kept going through a litany of rights violations using for example searches without probable cause of bags from shoppers making sure their purchases were "essential" or stopping travelers on the highway to ask their destination. Don't think this didn't happen, it did. He also was disturbed at criminal actions verses civil infractions, and although he claimed to have neither violations (doesn't drive) was concerned. Could he be charged a violation by standing in front of his building getting "oxygen" and not keeping a safe distance from others?
A couple of attorneys (dems) said that the justices shouldn't be addressing the questions, as the EO's in question had been rescinded. REALLY, I yelled at my monitor. And when asked how should these issues be address, the answer was, "in litigation". Again, REALLY??? The legislative case which just filed its application, is addressing a public health law of 1943. This law gives the Public Health Director the right to make his own orders...think about that for a moment? A guy implanted in MI Gov. from Obomb's administration could run the show. Question was begged, and begged, what if they rule against the 1945 law, does the 28 days of the 1976 law then stand, and what about all those subsequent EO past the 28 days. Well, they'd be moot. And, can't Gretch just declare a new Emergency? Well, that be no as once the emergency has ended. . .Again, Bernstein used Fauchi's words saying Covid is here to stay so it will be impossible to open up MI since to fully open up means covid is 100% gone.(Step-6) But, Fauchi said Vax will only give 65% coverage, so basically, it's impossible to reach 100% ever. One JUGE booboo made by that smartest guy in the room...he mentioned that the Unlock Michigan Petition won't make it to the ballot until 2022. WHAT??? Does he have insider info? Or, is he not the smartest guy in the room? No one corrected him. I wanted to box his ears, but hey, that's just me.
Two of the Justices had no questions for the five attorneys presenting arguments. All were extremely well-prepared, and just one was exceptionally obnoxious. Its hard to determine what the ruling would be, although it was asked several times how the future will look on the issue.
Christ! It's going to take militia like tactics to get this right. I hate this moment in life!
Justice Bernstein.... endless games.
"handi-capable," RINO Calley? No, if he could not perform his job as others are able, then Bernstein should've recused.
The court, and this suit is a joke. A despicable one.
If the judges rule against the Constitution they are essentially forfeiting their positions. If there is no more Constitution, there is no more legitimate rule of law since the law is based on the Constitution.
This also means the Governor forfeits her position as do all politicians in Michigan. They will nullify the existence of our State.
If they don't rule in the Constitution's favor, militia better gets ready to arrest the tyrants. We can no longer live with these out of control power-hungry monsters who have been directed by their donors to destroy our state and people.
Fuckin' A