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.
The nonpartisan coalition includes people like Bill Rustem, who served as Policy Director under former Republican governors William Milliken and Rick Snyder. Former Gov. Jim Blanchard, Sen. Debbie Stabenow and former Lt. Gov. John Cherry are also involved the group.
The Governor overstepped, and it is not acceptable.
There is much more I could have said in this video, but this is clearly enough to take action on.
Call the Governor @ 517-373-3400, and let her know how happy you are with her destroying an entire industry of 600,000 workers in Michigan, and hurting all those who rely on the immense value provided by that industry.
During the budget battle she admonished the legislature for not jumping on board with her 45 cent a gallon tax increase. None of her party’s house or senate members even tried to make it happen. She was all on her own.
But Gretchen wouldn’t allow the state to move forward without a budget, so she signed what was given her. She signed it, using the veto pen in a way she may have thought would bring the legislature back to her. Yet in actuality, she revealed her own apathy for certain segments of government largess.
And at the same time she did another curious thing. She sent a message to our state workforce, suggesting that if anyone so much as speaks to our legislators, they might regret it. By lining out protections for those employees within, who also want good government. From West Michigan Politics:
State employees are no longer protected if they expose questionable activities to state legislators.
Here is what Whitmer removed:
“”The department shall not take disciplinary action against an employee for communicating with a member of the legislature or his or her staff.”
A Whitmer administration source says that language is somehow “unenforceable,” which simply doesn’t add up.
I share the common distrust of the powers that be in Lansing to hold off on NEW gas taxes.
It seems that even the post directly preceding this has noted potential end-around solutions that will provide new income streams from taxpayer to bureaucrat for whatever purpose. We advise strongly against new enabling features that give local government more ways in which to screw us.
In the meantime we can at least enjoy the fact that the legislature did force Whitmer to show where her priorities are not, by witnessing the line item vetoes made. I agree with several of them, but frankly think at this point she owns any discontent from those sectors.
The University of Michigan is paying $10.6 million annually in salary and benefits to employ 82 diversity officers, including 76 on its Ann Arbor campus.
For that amount of money, more than 700 students could receive full in-state tuition at a time when the cost of college continues to rise, UM-Flint Professor of Finance and Business Economics Mark J. Perry has argued.
Perry has been a financial watchdog of sorts regarding UM’s DEI staffing, highlighting his research on his personal website for the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative public policy think tank. He’s also successfully internally challenged UM faculty awards specified for minorities and women with Title IX complaint threats.
“… Once you move away from the academy/higher education, with its uniform leftist, progressive, liberal echo chamber, I think you find that mainstream Americans object to the diversity efforts that contribute to higher tuition and rising student loan debt that are contributing to the unsustainable ‘higher education bubble,'” Perry said.
Perry pretty much captures the entire argument.
While Michigan’s budget deadline looms, there is an opportunity to start walking back the $2 billion in funding to ‘higher ed’ in the state. Complaints about the 0.5% increases vs. a desired 3% increase should not only fall on deaf ears, but should be fully repudiated with a universal university CUT of 25-50% until academics becomes the main focus in our taxpayers subsidized cultural petrie dishes.
I will repeat again that our constitution requires support for these leftist incubators, but it does not stipulate the level of support.
If Whitmer wants more money to the roads and primary education, or if we as a state want to properly fund our hidden liabilities going forward, it is time to move the resources from where it hurts us. We owe these money pits nothing. Make the universities more competitive again by eliminating their slush moneys.