* WAND has a novel legal analysis of yesterday’s Clay County judicial order and I dismissed it at first. I mean, even Rep. Bailey himself says yesterday’s order only applies to him. But I somewhat reconsidered, then backtracked and now admit to being a bit stumped after re-reading the order several times…
Monday was the first hearing on the lawsuit, where Clay County Circuit Court Judge Michael McHaney ruled against against Pritzker’s executive order, granting a restraining order to temporarily block the stay-at-home order restrictions taking effect on Friday.
This does not mean the current stay-at-home order has been lifted. Gov. Pritzker’s legal team has a week to appeal the judge’s ruling. According to the Attorney General, who is representing Pritzker, the order does not impact the entire state. The governor’s office said if they lose the appeal on Tuesday they will issue the new directives.
However an attorney WAND-TV spoke with read the ruling differently, saying this could apply to Illinois as a whole. If so the state could “return to normal” Friday, unless another judge gets involved to overturn the ruling.
The ruling only applies to Bailey, but the lawyer said because Gov. Pritzker is acting on behalf of the government, he believes Pritzker can not issue a new ruling and exclude Bailey; therefore making it binding for the entire state. Pritzker would also not be able to issue a new order due to equal protection laws, according to the lawyer.
There is no returning to “normal.” Those days are over. The vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. John Hyten, said this two days ago on 60 Minutes…
2019 normal will never exist again. We have to figure out how to operate and fight through a world where coronavirus exists.
But could Illinois return to legal “normal”? That’s the question here.
* The reporter explained more on Twitter…
* To the order…
Part “A” is clear. Rep. Bailey is exempt from enforcement of the March 20 order, which, by the way, is no longer in effect. But, let’s just stipulate that the judge meant to say the April continuance of the original order.
Even so, the judge is blocking enforcement of an order that doesn’t quite exist in the way he characterized it. The EO does not force anyone to “isolate and quarantine” in their homes beyond this…
The intent of this Executive Order is to ensure that the maximum number of people self-isolate in their places of residence to the maximum extent feasible, while enabling essential services to continue, to slow the spread of COVID-19 to the greatest extent possible.
There’s no “forcing” evident here. Ensuring people “self-isolate” doesn’t mean forcing them to do it. But whatever.
And as far as quarantines go, the EO only mentions the word in context of existing powers of state and local health departments…
People at high risk of severe illness from COVID-19, including elderly people and those who are sick, are urged to stay in their residence to the extent possible except as necessary to seek medical care. Nothing in this Executive Order prevents the Illinois Department of Public Health or local public health departments from issuing and enforcing isolation and quarantine orders pursuant to the Department of Public Health Act, 20 ILCS 2305. […]
Nothing in this Executive Order shall, in any way, alter or modify any existing legal authority allowing the State or any county, or local government body from ordering (1) any quarantine or isolation that may require an individual to remain inside a particular residential property or medical facility for a limited period of time, including the duration of this public health emergency
* Let’s move on to “Part B.” This is the part that the unnamed attorney in the WAND account was referring to. The judge barred Pritzker from entering any further orders against Rep. Bailey. The governor can’t just specifically carve Bailey out of a future EO without triggering an equal protection lawsuit.
Then again, the new EO, which takes effect May 1, will not be “forcing [Bailey] to isolate and quarantine in his home.”
So, I dunno. It reminds me of the old saying that the only lawyer in town will starve until another lawyer moves in.
* But it’ll probably be a moot point soon enough anyway. The judge was clearly biased and made some truly odd arguments…
That would be the very definition of what conservatives used to call an “activist judge.”
* Some more quotes compiled by Mark Maxwell, who was at yesterday’s hearing…
Judge McHaney: “This executive order is absolutely destroying people’s property.”
Judge McHaney: “The Speaker of the Illinois House could propose an amendment to the Illinois Emergency Management Act and grant the Governor the authority. He could pass that in a New York minute, couldn’t he?”
Thomas Verticchio [with the AG’s office]: “Governors have made successive and multiple proclamations and then issued…”
Judge McHaney: “Aren’t you talking about flooding? That governor certainly didn’t shut down the state or destroy people’s lives or property over H1N1.”
Judge McHaney: “There is a vast difference between being allowed to ask the federal government for disaster loans for a flood, and depriving me of my constitutional right to work, to travel, to exist.”
Judge McHaney: Does the Governor have the right to shred the Constitution for longer than 30 days? That’s the issue, isn’t it?
1) The EO isn’t destroying anyone’s property. The virus is.
2) “Because… Madigan!” But, hey, the judge isn’t totally wrong here. The GA could reconvene, but we are still at or near the peak of a pandemic.
3) Illinois was not declared a federal or state disaster area during H1N1. Huge, huge difference.
4) It’s not just about federal disaster money. The governor can legally bar entrance to and exit from flood zones, he can shut down businesses during earthquakes, he can do all sorts of things when natural disasters strike, and this virus is certainly one of those.
5) As we’ve already discussed, the statute is likely silent about multiple 30-day EOs for a reason.
Anyway, your turn.
- Quibbler - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:04 pm:
The only upside of this misbegotten order is that it may get the GA to reconvene, pass a bill allowing remote voting, and then get on to doing the people’s business. It’s incredible that the GA has completely absented itself during the worst health and economic crisis of our lifetimes. The first order of business should be passing legislative support for the governor’s actions to shut down this nonsense litigation. The next should be an emergency relief package addressing rent, mortgages, etc.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:07 pm:
You don’t have a constitutional right to fish.
The judge isn’t being deprived of his right to work. Or travel. He did both yesterday. And I don’t even know where he was going with being deprived of his right to exist.
The judge seemed to indicate that he beleives an disaster declaration involves “shredding the Constitution.”
I think they maybe should have found a judge who was sane and who could make a well-reasoned ruling. The judge was certainly incapable of that. And he should be embarrassed.
- TheInvisibleMan - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:07 pm:
===the judge is blocking enforcement of an order that doesn’t quite exist in the way he characterized it===
===the new EO, which takes effect May 1, will not be “forcing [Bailey] to isolate and quarantine in his home===
This is the meat of the, for lack of a better word, issue.
If I announced today that I will pass a law that nobody in Illinois can kill unicorns for the rest of the year…
While it is actually a law, it doesn’t actually apply to anything in the real world.
I think that is exactly what the judge, and also bailey, are doing here. A lot of words that sound similar to our reality, but not actually contained in it. While being just legal-sounding enough to stoke the flames.
Reprehensible behavior by bailey and the judge.
I would not be at all surprised if the state Supreme Court places some sanctions on this judge before the month is over.
- Amalia - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:07 pm:
from what I’m told, it’s sad that this judge is getting attention, which was also his goal. because he is, on a regular basis, a freak show of horrible.
- DuPage Saint - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:08 pm:
Pritzker should do an order that applies to everyone except people that are a state rep and are running for state senate
Sorta like laws that apply to all counties with h over a million population
- PJ - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:12 pm:
Conservatives are all about law and order, right until the nanosecond that laws or orders place any constraint on something they want to do at any given time. Then it’s unconstitutional, I’m told.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:13 pm:
I read that last night myself. And ended up scratching my head and partially agreeing with the lawyer.
You could argue it either way. In other emergencies, say flooding with a no entry order, there are exceptions allowing certain people to enter.
In the larger scheme, I guess it really doesn’t matter since the judge’s order is temporarily suspended to allow for an appeal, and an appeal by the State is being / has been filed.
- Downstate - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:14 pm:
From my research it looks like Judge McHaney is a Democrat.
- TheInvisibleMan - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:14 pm:
The AG should present a case based on this decision that any disaster funds received in previous multi-month declarations beyond the initial 30 days, should immediately be returned to the state and/or federal government.
Seems these types of orders were ok for bettle bailey when his and his constituents farms were getting aid for multi-months floods that were very recently happening in his district.
Then publicly print a list of all emergency aid distributed to his constituents.
- Belden Ave - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:16 pm:
It will be interesting to see how the 5th District appellate court does. It is a majority republican court with two of it’s sitting justices running for the Supreme Court.
- essentially working - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:19 pm:
I am wondering if someone more enlightened than i am might be able to explain why the IL pandemic flu plan isn’t the road map being used in the case of this pandemic?
Link for the lazy:
http://www.idph.state.il.us/pandemic_flu/Illinois_Pandemic_Flu_Plan.pdf
- truthtopower - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:25 pm:
Someone should investigate the history of this Judge with Bailey. They are probably “good ole boys”. AG should have filed a Motion For Substitution Of Judge As Of Right. Each party has the right to one substitution of judge before the judge has made a substantive ruling. That’s obviously what the AG should’ve done from the get go.
- West Side the Best Side - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:25 pm:
Having read the judge’s order, I have no need to apologize for the comments I made about him yesterday when I said I’d apologize if it was a well reasoned order. I realize it is just a TRO which does not necessarily mean relevant case law has to be cited, but he doesn’t even know what the EO says. There is nothing in either EO quarantining anyone in the state, much less that Bloc head. If you start with the premise that the judge is too dumb to even know the content of the EO he is ruling on, then you’ve got to figure that there is a reversal in the horizon. Even though appellate courts do sometimes affirm rulings of trial courts for reasons other than relied on by the trial court, generally they do like it if the trial judge at least knows the subject matter he or she is ruling on. That does not appear to be the case here.
- RuralKing - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:33 pm:
Let’s say the judge’s order stands and the April EO is permanently suspended.
NOBODY is forced to open their business
NOBODY is forced to go out in public
NOBODY is forced to do anything they think is unsafe
There has been tremendous economic harm created during this pandemic and it will take years to recover.
At some point, the juice ain’t worth the squeeze…and the science is backing this up with every passing day (google Stanford University coronavirus study)
This virus is not a death sentence for 99.7% of us, even if we catch it.
Let’s protect the vulnerable and the rest of us can get back to work, play, and our lives being responsible citizens
- Tynie - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:37 pm:
RuralKing, I like that plan. I know it puts me in a minority around here, but still.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:38 pm:
To the Post,
What happened in yesterday’s decision with the TRO was an “activist” judge doing enough to gum up the works for Bailey and force the appeal of the ruling to keep the political discussion going.
Example?
* A view of property being hurt, by a decision, not a virus
* “Because Madigan”
* Interpreting what is it isn’t (huh) a natural disaster
What was accomplished is a “for the record” decision allowing political thoughts to a legal question, and by the limited scope of the ruling to Mr. Bailey, there’s a political symbolism, the lone fighter winning against “everyone”, for rights that confuse, like this idea that fishing by this judge is essential(?)
What’s dangerous in this exercise is the political activism and folks laughing in a court room while a global pandemic continues and the asymptomatic carriers might see this, unknowingly, as away to be free to infect others. That’s my fear, for me, what if I inadvertently infected others by being careless… because golf or fishing or whatever first world problem I’d bemoan is more important that the greater good.
The regional politics did indeed win. Read the words, understand the limited scope and framing of that win, and then grasp that inheriting the wind isn’t a win for a society being effected will illness.
Now let’s see the appeal.
- weeds - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:38 pm:
“1) The EO isn’t destroying anyone’s property. The virus is.”
Tell that to the restaurant owner with property taxes coming due, quarterly taxes due, employees upset by IDES.
Lots of destruction from being forced closed without regard for the local/regional “science.”
- Lester Holt’s Mustache - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:40 pm:
== from what I’m told, it’s sad that this judge is getting attention==
I think that’s what most of this is about, both for the protesters and for the media. This judge, Rep. Bailey and the protesters make up a small minority of an already small minority of voters in Illinois. Polling shows even a majority of republicans support stay at home orders, which is why these groups can’t get more than 20 people to go out there and make fools of themselves claiming that Covid-19 is a government hoax. But Bailey, et al. want the attention and the media needs clicks, so both sides prosper by making these protests seem more widespread than they really are
- Chatham Resident - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:41 pm:
It’s incredible that the GA has completely absented itself during the worst health and economic crisis of our lifetimes. The first order of business should be passing legislative support for the governor’s actions to shut down this nonsense litigation.
———————–
And pass some sort of an FY21 budget. If not full year until the virus threat subsides and shelter-in-place lifted, then do a 3 or 6-month budget then pass the rest of the year later this summer.
- CCapilla - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:43 pm:
RuralKing, not saying I have a correct answer here but I think there is more at play than what you are stating. You are correct, in the absence of any restrictions, business can choose to remain closed. Similarly, people may choose to not patronize those businesses. However, were that to happen (and I suspect it might by large orders of magnitude), all of the outcomes are reduced to a choice. So all business interruption/loss, lack of revenue, possible exposures must be borne entirely by the businesses and the individuals impacted. Maybe that’s the goal. But that move has the potential to limit access to government aid, insurance assistance, etc. because “Hey, they made a choice.” Perhaps that’s the right answer anyway but I think it is important to consider that there are no “good” answers in this and that whatever next week or next month looks like, it doesn’t look very much like last year at all.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:43 pm:
- RuralKing -
Yeah. Sounds cool and winning.
An organizer of the North Carolina anti-“lockdown” has the Coronavirus now.
Irony isn’t a well-pressed shirt.
Being callous with other’s lives for money is exactly why opening with no support from people willing to go outside will hurt more that merely closed as you think is “arbitrary”
Oh.. your beef, for the 5,739th time is with the White House. Illinois hasn’t cleared phase one. Call the President. It’s his plan.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:47 pm:
Ruralking and Tynie, you guys don’t work in nursing homes,, do you? What about prisons?
It’s not about you getting sick, it’s about you possibly spreading it to others, especially those who have serious underlying conditions.
Can’t you think about anyone other than yourself?
- @misterjayem - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:48 pm:
“google Stanford University coronavirus study”
Okay, I did: “Donald Kennedy, who led Stanford to rising national influence, dies of coronavirus”
– MrJM
- the Patriot - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:48 pm:
==1) The EO isn’t destroying anyone’s property==
Except if you lost your business and livelihood to the EO long before your community ever had a single positive test. There are still areas with little or no impact from the actual virus.
My first thought on the order was Bailey is about to get creamed by the Supreme Court. But kicking to a later date less than 30 days raises the question whether this is an appealable order? My guess is that the Supreme Court that has suspended even criminal rights to a trial is going to go with the Governor.
Bad cases make bad Law and Bailey is about to follow that maxim. The legislature has opted to sit this one out so the Governor has broader power.
I would prefer to see a suit challenging the randomness of the orders that have no medical basis.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:49 pm:
===Tell that to the restaurant owner===
I know several. They’re not happy. But people aren’t coming back until the federal government gets its act together and this virus abates.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:52 pm:
- weeds -
The asymptomatic folks unintentionally infecting, like in nursing homes or prisons, that’s one of the major challenges the stay at home order is trying to help until the Feds can get an overall safety to things this virus causes when we can’t even pinpoint where it’s at.
Respectfully
- Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:55 pm:
“NOBODY is forced”
So many others would be forced to be in dangerous contact with the foolishly destructive people who reopen too soon.
- RuralKing - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:57 pm:
OW -
There is risk involved in everyday life…always
I’ll take my risks out in the world…I am not suggesting that I know what is best for you or anyone else.
As an aside, no matter what happens from the standpoint of the EO or any other stay-at-home order, people are going to get on with their lives and it’s going to happen soon. Most people I know are losing their will to comply.
- Morty - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:58 pm:
Rural. From my understanding 60% of Americans have an underlying condition that would make the susceptable for complications.
That’s ignoring the otherwise healthy people who caught the virus and died.
‘No one is forcing…’
And if your job is opened and you have a condition…what? Unemployment…disability…?
Look at what has happened in the various meat processing plants across the country.
- Morty - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:58 pm:
Rural. From my understanding 60% of Americans have an underlying condition that would make the susceptable for complications.
That’s ignoring the otherwise healthy people who caught the virus and died.
‘No one is forcing…’
And if your job is opened and you have a condition…what? Unemployment…disability…?
Look at what has happened in the various meat processing plants across the country.
- TominChicago - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 12:59 pm:
McHaney doesn’t seem to be the brightest bulb in the judicial chandelier. First, the net effect of the TRO does not invalidate the EO. It only bars the state from enforcing the order so as to force Bailey to isolate and quarantine in his home. The EO doesn’t do that. Instead it limits what can be open. For instance, this order does not allow a tattoo parlor to open, nor does it mandate that the state open fishing, which is a state regulated activity. I guess it could be read to prevent punishing Bailey if he violates the order by not social distancing, but it does not confer on him the ability to get a haircut. In addition, the judge seems to suggest that JB could shred the constitution for 29 days, but not 31.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:01 pm:
=== There is risk involved in everyday life…always===
A global pandemic is not everyday life, this is not the flu, this isn’t going to magically disappear. Downplaying this only reinforces why folks aren’t smart enough to protect society.
===people are going to get on with their lives and it’s going to happen soon. Most people I know are losing their will to comply.===
Anecdotal isn’t factual.
I don’t think the numbers may be with you.
- Morty - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:03 pm:
Rural- You’re at a beach and there’s a shart sighting…knowing that sharks rarely attack humans do you continue swimming or do you go to the shore?
- Roadrager - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:03 pm:
“google Stanford University coronavirus study”
I did. Do you mean the body of work of one Gregory Rigano, Esquire?
“As it turns out, Rigano is in no way associated with Stanford University, and Stanford’s Medical School says that despite Rigano’s claims to the contrary, it had nothing to do with his so-called study. All of the other authors listed are indeed real researchers — but, like Stanford, they all claim to know nothing about Rigano or his study.
Rigano also appears to have nothing to do with Jonas Research, which, not surprisingly, does not have a CEO position. He does not appear to have degrees from any of the institutions he claims, nor does he appear to have been the founder of any of the various actual existing student organizations he claims to have founded on his LinkedIn page. To be clear: he might well have those degrees and be the founders for those organizations. But other than his LinkedIn page, there is a dearth of google-able records verifying or even referencing any of it.”
https://ordinary-times.com/2020/04/24/the-ballad-of-gregory-rigano/
- Tynie - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:03 pm:
47th Ward, allow me to answer my end of that. My view on this is grounded in the fact you can’t keep society predominantly locked down indefinitely. I believe Pritzker may try it if he wins the Bailey appeal. You may not, but I can see that escalating the risk of crimes of desperation because people lost everything they put into their business.
I’m aware you’ll probably think I’m being paranoid, but said paranoia has saved me in the past…more times than I care to admit… So I’m keeping it around.
- Amalia - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:05 pm:
@truthtopower, nobody should have to deal with this judge. some soj routinely.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:06 pm:
Tynie, if you were born the 1920s, everybody’d in London would be speaking German.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:08 pm:
=== My view on this is grounded in the fact you can’t keep society predominantly locked down indefinitely.===
Argue like an adult.
Not one person sees this or not one elected official has stated “indefinitely”, nor is the law written as such.
This is Facebook drivel, written to *seem* smart like a dorm room think tank. The dorms are closed. It’s a global pandemic. Argue with adult thinking.
=== I’m aware you’ll probably think I’m being paranoid, but said paranoia has saved me in the past…more times than I care to admit…===
Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean people aren’t out to get you.
In this case it’s a virus that has asymptomatic carriers that we can’t test or treat.
This paranoia is best for Facebook groups, called
“We’re Paranoid, But We Trust You”
- TominChicago - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:10 pm:
Tynie, do you really think that Pritzker is relishing this lock down? I am quite sure that he would lift it in heartbeat if Covid19 wasn’t such an existential threat to the residents of the state.
- walker - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:11 pm:
The judge enjoined something that doesn’t exist, and wouldn’t exist, as far as he himself described it applying to Rep.Bailey.
He apparently has a more general point he wants to make, beyond responding to Bailey’s actual situation. Judges have done that before to make expansive change. We shall see how well that flies.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:12 pm:
==you can’t keep society predominantly locked down indefinitely==
Nobody has ever once suggested that. It’s been like 6 weeks. There is a road map to open. I don’t see anything indefinite about anything.
==I believe Pritzker may try it ==
What kind of tinfoil hat thinking is that? I would love to get inside your head (scary as that place may be) and see how your brain is able to come to that conclusion.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:14 pm:
==I’ll take my risks out in the world==
We all face risk every day. But I don’t think any of us chooses to increase that risk by going out and playing in traffic, which is essentially what you are arguing for.
- Tynie - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:15 pm:
47th Ward, I figured you’d disagree with my stance. On the same side of it, I’ve already researched crimes that’ve occurred since the lockdowns hit.. And what I found is unfit for a family blog. In all honesty, that’s what lead me to believe it’s only a matter of short time, before the crimes of desperation start happening.
Frankly, that’s why I’d prefer to go RuralKing’s route sooner as opposed to later.
Again, I’m aware you’ll probably disagree. I just figured it was right, to give you a fuller scope of what’s driven my views on the selfishness claim.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:16 pm:
McHaney’s comments are devoid of any logic.
=== Judge McHaney: Does the Governor have the right to shred the Constitution for longer than 30 days? That’s the issue, isn’t it? ===
If the EO shreds the Constitution, than the 30 days is irrelevant,”isn’t it?” You can’t violate the constitution for one day, much less 30.
=== Judge McHaney: “The Speaker of the Illinois House could propose an amendment to the Illinois Emergency Management Act and grant the Governor the authority. He could pass that in a New York minute, couldn’t he?” ===
Again, if the issue is the 30 days then the EO doesn’t shred the constitution, he’s simply ruling on a procedural issue. He doesn’t believe the law allows an extension. If that’s the case, this isn’t a constitutional issue. It’s a violation of the specific law.
Whether McHaney is a GOP or Dem is not the point. His rantings clearly note a political opinion, not a legal one.
- @misterjayem - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:17 pm:
“I’m aware you’ll probably think I’m being paranoid, but said paranoia has saved me in the past…”
And my lucky rabbit’s foot has saved me in the past — but I still don’t believe it should drive Illinois’ public health policy during a global pandemic.
– MrJM
- Candy Dogood - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:18 pm:
As a rule I play “benefit of the doubt” a lot with folks that I disagree with who have position authority, like a judge.
However when i looked into to Judge McHaney’s bio some stereotypes were confirmed.
===B.A., Southern Illinois University (1979)
J.D., Southern Illinois University (1982)===
That ruling is some real T3 BS.
And then this gem:
===McHaney been named the 2010 Rend Lake College Alumnus of the Year. The 1977 graduate of RLC ===
@ “the Patriot”
===Except if you lost your business and livelihood to the EO long before your community ever had a single positive test.===
The presumption here is that there is an acceptable number of one’s community members that must die from a known threat prior to preventing the risk of death.
Downstate has benefited — greatly — from being in a State where the response was dictated by the severity of the pandemic in Cook & the Collar Counties caused action to be taken that closed schools and other social spaces and resulted in saving any number of our friends, families, neighbors, and community members.
When saving lives is effective hindsight can often fail to recognize the impact.
- OpentoDiscussion - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:23 pm:
Back to the real issue.
Can the Governor extend the restrictions beyond 30 days when it is the same ‘emergency’, in this case coronoavirus?
It would seem that he could definitely extend such orders when it is a different matter. But that is not the case.
Any thoughtful comments?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:25 pm:
=== Back to the real issue.===
Tell that to the judge, lol
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:26 pm:
=== Tell that to the judge, lol===
This is tragically comical to the idea that the ruling here is based on the issue, given the words used by the same judge to make the decision.
- OpentoDiscussion - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:26 pm:
=Mark Maxwell
✔
@MarkMaxwellTV
Judge said @GovPritzker’s executive order violated “my constitutional right to work, to travel, to exist.”
He asked, “Does the Governor have the right to shred the Constitution for longer than 30 days?”
Judge took offense that Pritzker laughed off a question about downstate. =
Does anyone have any addition info about the comment that Pritzker “laughed off a question about downstate?
- Norseman - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:26 pm:
Yes, the Dems can legislatively deal with the phony procedural argument of the 30 days, but this is a political ploy by the GOP and will continue to be one throughout the debate on any amendment to the IEMA Act. It’s not in the IL’s best interest in responding to emergencies to acquiesce to this ploy. Governors need to take action in emergencies. For this reason, I believe it’s imperative to see this ridiculous ruling is overturned by the courts.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:27 pm:
tr
- OpentoDiscussion - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:27 pm:
I asked for thoughtful comments? Naturally OWE did not provide one.
- Candy Dogood - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:28 pm:
===This virus is not a death sentence for 99.7% of us, even if we catch it.===
It’s neat when the pro-letting people die side of the argument really understates the number of people that die.
If someone is already going to be pro-letting people die, at least be honest about the numbers of folks dying.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:29 pm:
=== did not provide one.===
Your premise is that the ruling is thoughtful.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:29 pm:
==Any thoughtful comments?==
I do but they probably would get me banned.
- OpentoDiscussion - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:33 pm:
=I do but they probably would get me banned.=
I asked for thoughtful comments so why bother responding with one that is irrelevant?
- Trying to Be Rational - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:34 pm:
My understanding is that there has NEVER been a successful vaccine developed for a coronavirus. If someone finds otherwise, I’ll stand corrected.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:34 pm:
=== I asked for thoughtful comments===
Is this your blog?
Again, your premise must be this is a thoughtful ruling.
- Mikey - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:37 pm:
Lots of anger on this site. Not many lawyers though. Many of these comments are personal attacks on Rep. Bailey and the Court. Did you know that the judge went to SIU School of Law? I’m impressed. That school typically requires a 160 on the LSAT. By comparison DePaul University School of Law requires a 152-154 range. But hey, he’s a downstater. Quite the logical argument there.
What I don’t see here is any talk of Constitutional rights, strict scrutiny, matters of federal questions, etc. I do see my fellow Illinois citizens, who claim to want to see people stay healthy, attack the participants in this matter with vile enthusiasm. Stay classy folks.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:40 pm:
- Mikey -
=== Judge McHaney: “This executive order is absolutely destroying people’s property.”
Judge McHaney: “The Speaker of the Illinois House could propose an amendment to the Illinois Emergency Management Act and grant the Governor the authority. He could pass that in a New York minute, couldn’t he?”===
Your take?
=== What I don’t see here is any talk of Constitutional rights, strict scrutiny, matters of federal questions, etc.===
I know I’m responding to what the judge wants seen as his rationale.
You think these are rational thoughts to your own critique of us lowly commenters?
- Tynie - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:41 pm:
Demoralized, I came across a local news article that lead me to believe Pritzker’s not being totally honest about how he interacts with in-state leaders. After reading it, I started wondering what else he’s not-exactly explaining. All that did was, reinforce my decision not to trust him. My belief on the EO chain, is part of that.
We’ll probably disagree, but I figured you deserved to know my thought process on this one.
https://week.com/2020/04/27/stay-at-home-order-and-downstate-illinois-peoria-mayor-wants-governor-to-engage-local-leaders/
- OpentoDiscussion - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:43 pm:
=What I don’t see here is any talk of Constitutional rights, strict scrutiny, matters of federal questions, etc. I do see my fellow Illinois citizens, who claim to want to see people stay healthy, attack the participants in this matter with vile enthusiasm. Stay classy folks.=
That is what I was trying to get when I asked for thoughtful comments. As usual, the ‘usual suspects’ lambasted with their irrelevant, snarky broadsides.
Still would like some actual discussion. I do not claim to know the answer to my question. So far to no avail.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:44 pm:
===Stay classy folks===
Comparing today’s LSAT admissions bands to this particular judge, who attended law school in the early 1980s, is unhelpful.
It’s not that he’s a downstater, it’s that he and ailey are pushing a selfish, parochial agenda and not taking into consideration the good of the entire state.
Waiting for hospitals to be over run before forcing people to stay at home was not something a majority of Illinoisans wanted to risk. I realize the polarized nature of our state, and respect downstate views to a point.
But a person’s right to swing their arms freely ends at the tip of my nose.
- OpentoDiscussion - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:44 pm:
=- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:34 pm:
=== I asked for thoughtful comments===
Is this your blog?=
Is it yours?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:49 pm:
=== Is it yours?===
Nope. I’m a guest. The rules of the house are not for me to decide. You don’t like the responses you’re getting, look at the questions you’re asking… like this;
===Still would like some actual discussion===
The discussion isn’t dorm room ridiculousness, the discussion has been to not only the actual ruling, the words, both written and spoken by the judge.
Philosophical discussions to this exact ruling and language to it isn’t moving the discussion when the premise I know I have is this ruling isn’t at all thoughtful to any thoughts you think this speaks to in the overall.
- Lester Holt’s Mustache - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:50 pm:
== What I don’t see here is any talk of Constitutional rights,==
That’s true, I’ve seen very little talk about people’s constitutional right to life. I’ve seen little talk on this blog about people’s right to stay healthy, and very little talk about how folks are supposed to avoid the clowns who think this is all overblown. Very little talk about individual responsibility, as in “it’s my personal responsibility not to make my fellow Americans sick”. Although I admit I have seen lots and lots of talk about constitutional rights to go fishing, and constitutional rights to ignore the advice of doctors, and constitutional rights to be able to spread the disease around so that you can go get a haircut. The most commonly discussed version of constitutional rights lately seems to be “give me liberty so that I can give other people death”
- Practical Politics - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:53 pm:
As to the Illinois General Assembly not holding meetings:
1. The Capitol has been closed to the public and only legislators and their staffers are allowed to entry the building and its annexes;
2. The US Congress and numerous other political bodies have managed to convene meetings and transact legal business. In fact, the Chicago City Council just conducted a meeting concerning emergency powers for the mayor.
The Speaker and the Senate President need to call meetings.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 1:54 pm:
Anon 1:44 was me.
- Excitable Boy - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 2:01 pm:
- keep society predominantly locked down indefinitely. -
What is this mythical lockdown people keep talking about? As best I can tell, the big difference in my life isn’t I can’t go inside a restaurant for a meal and I can’t go into a bar to have too many drinks.
I can still get groceries when I need them, and I’ve been able to go to the hardware store when needed.
I can walk outside when I want, I just can’t go to certain outdoor spaces.
This is a paradise compared to some less fortunate places.
And sure, I feel for the small businesses, hopefully most of them are able to weather the storm, but let’s not forget those small businesses fail every day for thousands of different reasons.
This suit and ruling is grandstanding, red meat to a base of supporters who pretend to love the constitution when it suits them and ignores it when it doesnt. Nothing more.
- njt - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 2:05 pm:
===Any thoughtful comments?===
Let’s say a volcano happened to be in Illinois and was erupting for over 30 days. Would you argue that the EO would expire on day 30 and you’d carry along?
As OW said earlier, none of this talk matters when people are dying every day. It’s time for people to lead and act.
- Donnie Elgin - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 2:07 pm:
If the Rullli g made by this “south of I-80 judge” is upheld - JB could resign simply and Stratton could could issue a new EO. I mean it is a matter of life and death right ?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 2:16 pm:
=== JB could resign simply and Stratton could could issue a new EO.===
See - OpentoDiscussion -…
Once you decide the dorm room is open, someone is inevitably making a Hot Pocket in the microwave
- Lester Holt’s Mustache - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 2:21 pm:
==It’s time for people to lead and act.==
I think they are, you just have to look past the media and twitter noise. Very few people are interested in congregating together right now, even in states that have opened up like Georgia. Like I said earlier, these folks are a small minority of a small minority - even though it seems like all 43 of them somehow managed to make their way from Facebook to Capitol Fax
== This suit and ruling is grandstanding, red meat to a base of supporters who pretend to love the constitution when it suits them and ignores it when it doesnt. Nothing more.==
This x 1,000
- Michael Feltes - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 2:22 pm:
Iowa is running the counterfactual right now. As my mom lives there, I hope to God that the lower population density is sufficient to keep the virus from running rampant, but we’re going to find out one way or the other. For myself, I’m glad that if Illinois is erring, it’s erring to the side of being too strict.
- Tynie - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 2:27 pm:
Donnie,I found another local news article that explains a few other options for Pritzker. You’ll have to scroll to the base of it to get that list, but it may serve to make your resignation angle a last resort.
It may not, but I figured providing this source, would extend the discourse around here. You guys may be surprised by my decision to offer such a fig leaf, if you’ll allow the phrase. This choice has come out, because I’ve already explained my position. I’m aware many of you disagree, so out of respect for Rich’s civility rules, I’m not going to dispute your views on mine.
Anyhow, here’s the article:
https://www.centralillinoisproud.com/news/state-news/judge-puts-pritzkers-unconstitutional-executive-order-in-legal-limbo/
- Almost retired - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 2:30 pm:
Thank-you Lester Holt M—I agree with you.I have a disabled adult son who enjoys life and has for 20 years lived with multiple chronic conditions. I am not willing to sacrifice his life so Applebee’s can reopen. I would like folks to say exactly how many deaths are acceptable so you can fish or golf. My son would die with his preconditions if he caught the virus. I said to friends at the beginning of the virus that this would be a historic battle between the value of a human life and folks making money. You have the right to go out and get the virus and hurt yourself but you have no right to give the virus to others and kill those that are vulnerable. In my America, people care about their fellow Americans. It is a pandemic. Life is not normal and will not return to what people thought was normal.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 2:34 pm:
==Not many lawyers though.==
You don’t have to be a lawyer to rip apart the “reasoning” of the judge’s ruling. Even laymen can see that it wasn’t a reasoned opinion. It was basically a personal diatribe.
==What I don’t see here is any talk of Constitutional rights==
I’ve talked about it. And what I’ve said and continue to say is I don’t see anyone’s constitutional rights being violated. Nobody is being kept at home against their will. Nobody has had their rights to speak or assemble trampled on. Businesses have been closed but the government has always had broad powers to act during an emergency.
I do think there is a softball case waiting to be made in Illinois regarding drive in religious services. I think it’s probably a slam dunk case that those services have to be allowed if you are allowing everyone else to to drive up business.
- SAP - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 2:41 pm:
==I’ll take my risks out in the world…I am not suggesting that I know what is best for you or anyone else.== You are suggesting exactly that. You think that your desire to get out of the house is more important than my health.
- Tynie - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 2:42 pm:
I agree with you on the drive in religious services, Demoralized. However, if we’re wrong, it could lead to Barr repeating how he stepped in for a similar case in Mississippi. As I understand it, he had a statement of interest drawn up, siding with the church.
He’s also said, he’ll continue having those moves made if it becomes necessary.
Here’s where I got that:
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/barr-says-justice-department-may-support-suits-if-states-go-too-far-in-covid-19-constraints
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 2:44 pm:
===I’ll take my risks out in the world===
Just remember that you’re only as safe as the dumbest person near you. Which, apparently, could be you.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 2:48 pm:
“There is no returning to “normal.” Those days are over. The vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. John Hyten, said this two days ago on 60 Minutes…”
“2019 normal will never exist again. We have to figure out how to operate and fight through a world where coronavirus exists.”
With all due respect to the General, that’s not his decision to make. The proper response is “It may take a while, and there may need to be adjustments, but eventually we WILL get back to normal, or something very close to it, so help me God.”
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 2:49 pm:
==Just remember that you’re only as safe as the dumbest person near you.==
And it’s not helpful when your country’s leaders seem to be competing for that role. Hard to get people to be smart when your leadership refuses to be.
See Mike Pence:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/28/politics/mike-pence-mayo-clinic-mask/index.html
- RNUG - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 2:51 pm:
- OpentoDiscussion -
I think it is pretty clear JB had the authority to issue the initial order; he can cite authority under Emergency Powers and the Health Act. Looking at those, he doesn’t seem to have overreached what he is allowed to do. He hasn’t forced anyone to stay home, he hasn’t limited your travel by roadblocks or visa requirements. I will concede the 10 person or less gathering portion can be construed to infringe on right of association / free speech … but there are past precedents for such an order.
He has made it clear he wants / expects voluntary compliance. Also that he expects police to use persuasion as opposed to other enforcement methods.
Speaking of enforcement, talked to a retired LE friend earlier today and we hashed over some of this. He thinks the only thing the police could cite would be Reckless Endangerment.
So for the initial order, I don’t see any major case that could be made over rights violations. Past precedents and emergency statutes allow for some temporary limitations.
On to the extension. This is where you have 2 actual issues.
(a) Does JB have the authority to issue an extension beyond 30 days? This judge said yes, but allowed for appeal. There is the silence in the statute on that subject; you can argue either way. My take, given other language there about the GA being able to revoke an Executive Order, says the GA did envision extensions. Short of action by the GA, it will be up to the superior courts to sort out legislative intent.
(b) At what point does temporary suspension of rights or priveledges become an actionable infringement on constitutional rights? My take is, since JB’s orders are really just (mostly) unenforced suggestions relying on voluntary compliance, there has been no actual infringement to date. You can argue the other side, but I think you would have to prove the state or its’ agents forcibly detained you or restricted your travel; in central Illinois, at least, I haven’t observed that to date. While I voluntarily shelter and comply with the grocery and drug store guidelines, I still can get out and walk, or bike, or go for multi-hour drives around the countryside.
So, as I said the other day, I expect the State to eventually prevail in this case.
- SAP - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 2:59 pm:
==Just remember that you’re only as safe as the dumbest person near you.== If you can’t tell who the dumbest person is, it’s you.
- JIbba - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 3:18 pm:
===In my America, people care about their fellow Americans===
Sadly, that time seems to have passed, at least to conservatives. They have harkened back to the rugged individualism of the old west. Obligations to others in society? We don’t need no stinking’ obligations.
- Strannik - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 3:26 pm:
There is this bizzare talking point that has been gaining increasing traction - that Pritzker would want to extend the stay-at-home executive order indefinitely. Which doesn’t make any sense - if nothing else, for the simple pragmatic reason that there’s no benefit to limiting businesses’ and residents’ ability to generate income indefinitely, because then the state doesn’t get revenue from taxes and fees. We may argue about when it’s safe to reopen, and how much, but why would Prtizker want to kneecap state finances any more than (he believes) is absolutely necessary?
- MyTwoCents - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 4:03 pm:
RuralKing, you mean this Stanford University study?
https://www.salon.com/2020/04/26/scientists-feud-over-hyped-stanford-coronavirus-antibody-study-the-authors-owe-us-all-an-apology/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/23/coronavirus-antibody-studies-california-stanford
As for taking risks, yes, if you’re young and healthy odds are pretty good COVID won’t impact you too badly. But look up the article Rich posted about the healthcare worker from Effingham and her battle with COVID. Or more scarily, there are reports coming out of NYC of younger (30s-50s) people with no underlying health issues suffering massive strokes due to COVID. Last time I checked that doesn’t happen with just your basic flu. Having a massive stroke in my mid-30s is not my Bucket List and it’s not worth the risk.
- Stuff Happens - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 4:27 pm:
Probably a stupid question, but what happens if the governor issues a new order and excludes Bailey? Sure, someone can file a new lawsuit over it, but in the meantime the new order is in effect, right? What are the penalties, or does it just buy time?
And if it buys time, can that time be used to overturn the Clay County judicial order? Then the new amended order could be rescinded.
I’m sure I’m missing something here.
- Tynie - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 4:40 pm:
Stuff Happens, the best answer I can give you is: we have to wait out the cases that’ve already been filed. I’m including the one from Curran in that, because it may be taken to a federal level. I haven’t seen many details on it, but I’m basing that hunch on the fact he’s due to run for a federal office, so his case may qualify for the level upgrade.
If I’m wrong, we could still get specifics of those case turnouts in media reports. Last I knew, that kind of thing is a matter of public record, but that may have changed. (I looked into it after following a local case, that isn’t really fit to discuss on a family blog. The case has been over for about eight months, which is plenty of time for a public record rule change.)
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 4:42 pm:
=== fact he’s due to run for a federal office, so his case may qualify for the level upgrade.===
It’s a *state* issue. (Face palm)
- Tynie - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 4:55 pm:
I’ll own causing that. However, I did it to further my way of saying we can’t predict what a judge will do.
- Suburban Mom - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 4:56 pm:
“Did you know that the judge went to SIU School of Law? I’m impressed. That school typically requires a 160 on the LSAT. By comparison DePaul University School of Law requires a 152-154 range. But hey, he’s a downstater. Quite the logical argument there.”
Hun, the median LSAT at SIU is a 147, and you can get in with a 140. The median undergrad GPA of accepted students is 2.91. SIU is a fourth-tier law school, among the bottom 50 schools in the US. DePaul is highish 3rd tier (118).
DePaul is 153, yes. 160 would put you among flagship state schools. University of Illinois’s median LSAT is, in fact, a 160. I assume you got confused between U of I and SIU. But come-on, man, don’t go pretending SIU is a top-tier school to make this completely insane decision with no legal basis sound legit. It’s an appeal to authority, which is bad reasoning, and your appeal to authority is extremely incorrect and relies on a false statement to even create an authority to appeal to.
(signed, graduate of a top-10 law school. So yes, I feel qualified to comment on the quality of the judge’s order. And there are plenty of lawyers down here in the comments who comment regularly.)
- OpentoDiscussion - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 5:14 pm:
@ RNUG
Thanks for your response. Much appreciated.
- 19th Ward LEO - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 11:34 pm:
The only other person I know who received their JD from SIU is Kim Foxx. She alone has pretty much ruined it for anyone out of SIU Law.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Apr 28, 20 @ 11:44 pm:
=== There is this bizzare talking point that has been gaining increasing traction - that Pritzker would want to extend the stay-at-home executive order indefinitely. ===
Of course you’re right. But the GOP is not into logic or rational discussion. JB is a Dem so the GOP pols and trolls create outrageous baloney to try and help them regain power.