Acceptable registrations in the queue through March 16 at 11:00a ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.

Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619

MI Supreme Court finds 1945 Emergency Powers Act Unconstitutional

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues in the State of Michigan. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13966
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: MI Supreme Court finds 1945 Emergency Powers Act Unconstitutional

Post by Rate This » Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:26 am

bmw wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:12 am
Rate This wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:02 am
I added to my post please read the rest of it.

I don’t see you refuting me so that’s telling.
The US Supreme Court visited the gerrymandering issue just last year. They found that "no test has yet been proposed which is precise and politically neutral enough to indicate when 'political gerrymandering has gone too far.'" In other words, the verdict is still out on whether or not our district lines are "rigged" as you call it.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/ ... 051876002/
Have you seen the district lines? They squiggle all over the place, they pack as many Democrats into an area as possible and create as many Republican districts as possible which over represents the GOP strength in the state. That’s really not a debated point, I don’t really care what SCOTUS thinks of it. They think money is speech too.



bmw
Posts: 6726
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: MI Supreme Court finds 1945 Emergency Powers Act Unconstitutional

Post by bmw » Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:31 am

Rate This wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:24 am
So whats the remedy? She gives them all millions of dollars from her personal bank account in restitution? I find that highly unlikely.
That's not how it works. Unless the law specifically states that the government official in question is personally financially liable (such as in FOIA - officials who violate the Freedom of Information Act must pay damages out of their own pockets), then financial liability lies with the government body for whom the individual person was working - in this case, I BELIEVE that would be the state of Michigan. Payouts would come out of the state's insurance policy meant to protect the state against such litigation. The problems for the average Michigander are two-fold - first, that the reckless actions of our governor could cause the states insurance premiums to SKYROCKET, and second, that such policies have caps on them, meaning that if damages add up to extremely large amounts of money, the insurance protection may run out and the state may literally have to come up with payments through some other method.



User avatar
UP906
Posts: 1327
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2020 9:34 am

Re: MI Supreme Court finds 1945 Emergency Powers Act Unconstitutional

Post by UP906 » Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:33 am

Rate This wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:24 am
bmw wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:17 am
Rate This wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:08 am
bmw wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:06 am
audiophile wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:01 am
She should be held personally liable...
And this is what makes the Supreme Court's decision all the more damning...courts are ordinarily reluctant to issue rulings that will open the floodgates for future litigation. The number of class-action lawsuits brought in the coming weeks will be staggering. The remainder of Whitmer's term will be spent with her fighting an OVERWHELMING amount of litigation.
With what merit exactly? Are they going to sue her personally or sue the state?
Well that depends. I believe the governor personally is entitled to claim qualified immunity. Such immunity is defeated using the reasonable person standard, which basically means the courts consider whether a "reasonable person" in her position (ie, a reasonable governor) either knew or should have known that they were violating other people's constitutional rights. So it doesn't matter whether Whitmer herself knew that she was violating others' constitutional rights; rather, it matters whether a generic reasonable person should have known. It will be interesting to see how the various lawsuits play out, but I think there is certainly a case to make that a reasonable governor in Whitmer's position should have known that her actions were unconstitutional.
So whats the remedy? She gives them all millions of dollars from her personal bank account in restitution? I find that highly unlikely.
Absolutely. Then we auction off the properties and the cars and the boats and whatever other assets she possesses. Then we fit her for an orange jumpsuit.

Maybe then assholes on BOTH sides of the aisle will think twice before trying to usurp both state and federal Constitutions.

This is OUR country. They work for US, not the other way around.


Thread Killer

bmw
Posts: 6726
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: MI Supreme Court finds 1945 Emergency Powers Act Unconstitutional

Post by bmw » Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:34 am

Rate This wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:26 am
Have you seen the district lines? They squiggle all over the place, they pack as many Democrats into an area as possible and create as many Republican districts as possible which over represents the GOP strength in the state. That’s really not a debated point, I don’t really care what SCOTUS thinks of it. They think money is speech too.
I was simply responding to your request for me to refute your claim. My refutation was to point to the highest court in the land which ultimately found the answer to the question to be inconclusive. You don't have to "care" what the SCOTUS found, but they ARE the highest court in the land - in other words, the ultimate authority which I could possibly cite.



User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13966
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: MI Supreme Court finds 1945 Emergency Powers Act Unconstitutional

Post by Rate This » Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:41 am

bmw wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:34 am
Rate This wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:26 am
Have you seen the district lines? They squiggle all over the place, they pack as many Democrats into an area as possible and create as many Republican districts as possible which over represents the GOP strength in the state. That’s really not a debated point, I don’t really care what SCOTUS thinks of it. They think money is speech too.
I was simply responding to your request for me to refute your claim. My refutation was to point to the highest court in the land which ultimately found the answer to the question to be inconclusive. You don't have to "care" what the SCOTUS found, but they ARE the highest court in the land - in other words, the ultimate authority which I could possibly cite.
Of course the state could say “Justice Roberts has his decision... now let him enforce it” and go about their day.

The ultimate authority seized the judicial review mantle one day in 1803 and nobody has bothered to tell them to knock it off. A SCOTUS decision is in fact non-binding. However we value precedents and decorum in this country so nobody does that. Well except Andrew Jackson... that’s where the quote above is from.



Matt
Posts: 9852
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Where Ben Zonia couldn't cut it

Re: MI Supreme Court finds 1945 Emergency Powers Act Unconstitutional

Post by Matt » Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:22 pm

bmw wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:34 am
Rate This wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:26 am
Have you seen the district lines? They squiggle all over the place, they pack as many Democrats into an area as possible and create as many Republican districts as possible which over represents the GOP strength in the state. That’s really not a debated point, I don’t really care what SCOTUS thinks of it. They think money is speech too.
I was simply responding to your request for me to refute your claim. My refutation was to point to the highest court in the land which ultimately found the answer to the question to be inconclusive. You don't have to "care" what the SCOTUS found, but they ARE the highest court in the land - in other words, the ultimate authority which I could possibly cite.
Another point on district lines: you have to take the total population and divide it by the number of districts in the state. People don't live in nice little boxes, evenly distributed.
Rate This wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:41 am
bmw wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:34 am
Rate This wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:26 am
Have you seen the district lines? They squiggle all over the place, they pack as many Democrats into an area as possible and create as many Republican districts as possible which over represents the GOP strength in the state. That’s really not a debated point, I don’t really care what SCOTUS thinks of it. They think money is speech too.
I was simply responding to your request for me to refute your claim. My refutation was to point to the highest court in the land which ultimately found the answer to the question to be inconclusive. You don't have to "care" what the SCOTUS found, but they ARE the highest court in the land - in other words, the ultimate authority which I could possibly cite.
Of course the state could say “Justice Roberts has his decision... now let him enforce it” and go about their day.

The ultimate authority seized the judicial review mantle one day in 1803 and nobody has bothered to tell them to knock it off. A SCOTUS decision is in fact non-binding. However we value precedents and decorum in this country so nobody does that. Well except Andrew Jackson... that’s where the quote above is from.
Dana Nessel has already stated that enforcement is over. Meanwhile, Whitmer is continuing to thtow a temper tantrum. I think we seriously determine if she is mentally fit to continue her duties.


What's more pathetic: harassing an old man who is paying to do a radio show or supporting a grifter like Trump?

User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13966
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: MI Supreme Court finds 1945 Emergency Powers Act Unconstitutional

Post by Rate This » Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:28 pm

Not before we try that on Trump. No way.



Matt
Posts: 9852
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Where Ben Zonia couldn't cut it

Re: MI Supreme Court finds 1945 Emergency Powers Act Unconstitutional

Post by Matt » Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:31 pm

Rate This wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:28 pm
Not before we try that on Trump. No way.
Seek help for your TDS. Whitmer is unhinged, while the AG has basically said her tyrannical reign is over.


What's more pathetic: harassing an old man who is paying to do a radio show or supporting a grifter like Trump?

User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13966
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: MI Supreme Court finds 1945 Emergency Powers Act Unconstitutional

Post by Rate This » Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:34 pm

Matt wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:31 pm
Rate This wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:28 pm
Not before we try that on Trump. No way.
Seek help for your TDS. Whitmer is unhinged, while the AG has basically said her tyrannical reign is over.
If she’s not fit by complaining about a court decision then Trump is straight jacket material for his debate performance. If you wanna go here we can have this debate. You will lose.



bmw
Posts: 6726
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: MI Supreme Court finds 1945 Emergency Powers Act Unconstitutional

Post by bmw » Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:48 pm

She's not just "complaining" about a court decision; she remains defiant, insisting her orders are in effect for another 3 weeks and that after that, she still has authority to keep the vast majority of that stuff in place. She's further continuing to give the finger to the legislature - the very body that the Court said she must work with to continue doing what she's doing. And of course, she's taking ZERO responsibility for the complicated mess she's put the state in, not to mention the extreme financial liability she's opened up the state to from the inevitable floodgate of lawsuits. I have to agree with Matt. Her behavior at this point is indicative of someone not only unfit for office, but someone who now stands to cause years worth of significant damage to our state.



User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13966
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: MI Supreme Court finds 1945 Emergency Powers Act Unconstitutional

Post by Rate This » Sun Oct 04, 2020 2:00 pm

bmw wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:48 pm
She's not just "complaining" about a court decision; she remains defiant, insisting her orders are in effect for another 3 weeks and that after that, she still has authority to keep the vast majority of that stuff in place. She's further continuing to give the finger to the legislature - the very body that the Court said she must work with to continue doing what she's doing. And of course, she's taking ZERO responsibility for the complicated mess she's put the state in, not to mention the extreme financial liability she's opened up the state to from the inevitable floodgate of lawsuits. I have to agree with Matt. Her behavior at this point is indicative of someone not only unfit for office, but someone who now stands to cause years worth of significant damage to our state.
Lovely. If a lot of people die when the GOP throws the doors open it’ll be their fuck up. Play with fire if you must... don’t get burned. When you do don’t whine or cry about it.



User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: MI Supreme Court finds 1945 Emergency Powers Act Unconstitutional

Post by audiophile » Sun Oct 04, 2020 2:12 pm

bmw wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:31 am
Rate This wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:24 am
So whats the remedy? She gives them all millions of dollars from her personal bank account in restitution? I find that highly unlikely.
That's not how it works. Unless the law specifically states that the government official in question is personally financially liable (such as in FOIA - officials who violate the Freedom of Information Act must pay damages out of their own pockets), then financial liability lies with the government body for whom the individual person was working - in this case, I BELIEVE that would be the state of Michigan. Payouts would come out of the state's insurance policy meant to protect the state against such litigation. The problems for the average Michigander are two-fold - first, that the reckless actions of our governor could cause the states insurance premiums to SKYROCKET, and second, that such policies have caps on them, meaning that if damages add up to extremely large amounts of money, the insurance protection may run out and the state may literally have to come up with payments through some other method.
Her EO's blocked FOIA.


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: MI Supreme Court finds 1945 Emergency Powers Act Unconstitutional

Post by audiophile » Sun Oct 04, 2020 2:18 pm

Matt wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:22 pm
bmw wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:34 am
Rate This wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:26 am
Have you seen the district lines? They squiggle all over the place, they pack as many Democrats into an area as possible and create as many Republican districts as possible which over represents the GOP strength in the state. That’s really not a debated point, I don’t really care what SCOTUS thinks of it. They think money is speech too.
I was simply responding to your request for me to refute your claim. My refutation was to point to the highest court in the land which ultimately found the answer to the question to be inconclusive. You don't have to "care" what the SCOTUS found, but they ARE the highest court in the land - in other words, the ultimate authority which I could possibly cite.
Another point on district lines: you have to take the total population and divide it by the number of districts in the state. People don't live in nice little boxes, evenly distributed.
Rate This wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:41 am
bmw wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:34 am
Rate This wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:26 am
Have you seen the district lines? They squiggle all over the place, they pack as many Democrats into an area as possible and create as many Republican districts as possible which over represents the GOP strength in the state. That’s really not a debated point, I don’t really care what SCOTUS thinks of it. They think money is speech too.
I was simply responding to your request for me to refute your claim. My refutation was to point to the highest court in the land which ultimately found the answer to the question to be inconclusive. You don't have to "care" what the SCOTUS found, but they ARE the highest court in the land - in other words, the ultimate authority which I could possibly cite.
Of course the state could say “Justice Roberts has his decision... now let him enforce it” and go about their day.

The ultimate authority seized the judicial review mantle one day in 1803 and nobody has bothered to tell them to knock it off. A SCOTUS decision is in fact non-binding. However we value precedents and decorum in this country so nobody does that. Well except Andrew Jackson... that’s where the quote above is from.
Dana Nessel has already stated that enforcement is over. Meanwhile, Whitmer is continuing to thtow a temper tantrum. I think we seriously determine if she is mentally fit to continue her duties.
Where did Nessel say that?


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

Matt
Posts: 9852
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Where Ben Zonia couldn't cut it

Re: MI Supreme Court finds 1945 Emergency Powers Act Unconstitutional

Post by Matt » Sun Oct 04, 2020 2:20 pm

audiophile wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 2:18 pm
Matt wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:22 pm
bmw wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:34 am
Rate This wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:26 am
Have you seen the district lines? They squiggle all over the place, they pack as many Democrats into an area as possible and create as many Republican districts as possible which over represents the GOP strength in the state. That’s really not a debated point, I don’t really care what SCOTUS thinks of it. They think money is speech too.
I was simply responding to your request for me to refute your claim. My refutation was to point to the highest court in the land which ultimately found the answer to the question to be inconclusive. You don't have to "care" what the SCOTUS found, but they ARE the highest court in the land - in other words, the ultimate authority which I could possibly cite.
Another point on district lines: you have to take the total population and divide it by the number of districts in the state. People don't live in nice little boxes, evenly distributed.
Rate This wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:41 am
bmw wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:34 am
Rate This wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:26 am
Have you seen the district lines? They squiggle all over the place, they pack as many Democrats into an area as possible and create as many Republican districts as possible which over represents the GOP strength in the state. That’s really not a debated point, I don’t really care what SCOTUS thinks of it. They think money is speech too.
I was simply responding to your request for me to refute your claim. My refutation was to point to the highest court in the land which ultimately found the answer to the question to be inconclusive. You don't have to "care" what the SCOTUS found, but they ARE the highest court in the land - in other words, the ultimate authority which I could possibly cite.
Of course the state could say “Justice Roberts has his decision... now let him enforce it” and go about their day.

The ultimate authority seized the judicial review mantle one day in 1803 and nobody has bothered to tell them to knock it off. A SCOTUS decision is in fact non-binding. However we value precedents and decorum in this country so nobody does that. Well except Andrew Jackson... that’s where the quote above is from.
Dana Nessel has already stated that enforcement is over. Meanwhile, Whitmer is continuing to thtow a temper tantrum. I think we seriously determine if she is mentally fit to continue her duties.
Where did Nessel say that?
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ ... 616380001/


What's more pathetic: harassing an old man who is paying to do a radio show or supporting a grifter like Trump?

User avatar
MWmetalhead
Site Admin
Posts: 11873
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:23 am

Re: MI Supreme Court finds 1945 Emergency Powers Act Unconstitutional

Post by MWmetalhead » Sun Oct 04, 2020 2:38 pm

Federal courts below the Supreme Court have said adamantly that Michigan's lines are among the worst cases of gerrymandering observed.

The U.S. Supreme Court basically punted, with the majority opinion stating the court has no jurisdiction over such matters. I'm oversimplifying the opinion, but that essentially was the ruling...that this is a matter to be resolved at the state level.



Post Reply Previous topicNext topic