Transgender jew(ess?) Rachel Levine, the Pennsylvania Secretary of Health, and jew governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Wolf, just got slapped down good over their Cohenavirus police state by a courageous federal judge.
William Stickman IV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Stickman_IV)
Upon petition by my old county of Butler (where Margi and I lived 2008-11, north of Pittsburgh), and three other western Penn. counties, this judge, appointed by President Donald Trump, let these two (((state officials))) have it….
Liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution cannot be subordinated even during times of an emergency, United States District Judge William S. Stickman IV wrote in his opinion, and the Constitution cannot accept the concept of a “new normal.”
“The liberties protected by the Constitution are not fair-weather freedoms — in place when times are good but able to be cast aside in times of trouble. There is no question that this Country has faced, and will face, emergencies of every sort,” Judge Stickman wrote. “But the solution to a national crisis can never be permitted to supersede the commitment to individual liberty that stands as the foundation of the American experiment.”
Rather, Judge Stickman wrote, “the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency,” and actions taken by Mr. Wolf, a Democrat, and Dr. Levine “crossed those lines” and are unconstitutional.
The Wolf administration argued that nearly all businesses had been permitted to reopen, the distinction between life and non-life-sustaining businesses has been eliminated and the orders suspended. It also claimed the stay-at-home orders were recommendations, not orders, and a legitimate exercise of emergency authority.
The court ruled that though the orders were suspended, they could be reinstated at will by the state, and that “the specter of future, reinstated lockdowns remains a concern for plaintiffs and continues to to hang over the public consciousness,” Judge Stickman wrote.
U.S. District Judge William S. Stickman IV, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, ruled that Wolf’s order restricting indoor and outdoor gatherings violated the First Amendment’s Freedom of Assembly Clause, and also struck down orders directing business closures and the state’s stay-at-home order as violating the Fourteenth Amendment.
The lawsuit was filed in May by four Western Pennsylvania counties, as well as business owners and lawmakers, and their specific grievances included a March stay-at-home order that required all but “life-sustaining” businesses to close, as well as a subsequent waiver program allowing certain businesses to reopen that was criticized for being applied in an uneven manner.
Pennsylvania’s current state guidelines had already reopened most businesses with social distancing requirements and capacity restrictions, and limited mass gatherings to 25 people indoors or 250 people outdoors, but officials noted that reopenings could be rolled back if the public health situation were to worsen.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court previously upheld Wolf’s orders in response to a similar legal challenge.
Wisconsin’s stay at home order was also overturned in May by the state’s Supreme Court.
CRUCIAL QUOTE
“The court believes that defendants undertook their actions in a well-intentioned effort to protect Pennsylvanians from the virus,” Stickman wrote. “But even in an emergency, the authority of government is not unfettered.”
KEY BACKGROUND
Stay at home orders and forced business closures have become a source of controversy amid the Covid-19 pandemic, as President Donald Trump and Republicans have railed against the restrictive measures while business owners protest the loss of their livelihoods. In addition to challenges targeting entire state-wide orders such as in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, industry-specific restrictions have also been protested in court by individual business owners: neighboring New Jersey has faced lawsuits by movie theaters and gyms over their continued closures (which have since been lifted), for instance, while bar owners sued Texas over their closure and New York City restaurant owners challenged the city’s ban on indoor dining, which will lift later this month.
WHAT TO WATCH FOR
The state has not yet said whether it will appeal the ruling to try and reinstate the lockdown orders, with a spokesperson for Wolf telling the Philadelphia Inquirer, “We’re aware of the ruling and are reviewing the decision.”
His actual ruling:
Pennsylvania Governor Covid-19 Actions Declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL 9-14-2020
Leave a Reply