Wisconsin SCOTUS rules against masks

[WTF]

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

Gov exercising power he did not have. , and Now Germany is stopping the astra vaccine
Side note on smallpox an polo they were both declining as the vaccines came out , kinda like what happening now remember "heard imm"

Smallpox had been around for 3000 years and you wanted to wait on herd immunity!

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Director of the CDC has now revised that to say that if you are vaccinated, you can not get nor will you give the virus to anybody else.


https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021...ead-virus.html


COVID-19 MAR. 30, 2021
CDC Data Suggests Vaccinated Don’t Carry, Can’t Spread Virus



After warning for months that vaccinated people should still be cautious in order to not infect others, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests they may not be at much risk of transmitting the coronavirus.
“Vaccinated people do not carry the virus — they don’t get sick,” Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Tuesday. That’s “not just in the clinical trials, but it’s also in real-world data.”
Now whether on chooses to believe that, that's up to you. So why are Biden and Pelosi and all the other vaccinated Democrats still wearing masks? In solidarity with those who should continue to wear a mask is the only "rational" explanation. They want, by their actions, to encourage everybody, vaccinated or not to continue wearing masks.

As to the Wisconsin decision,


“The plain language of the statute explains that the governor may, for 60 days, act with expanded powers to address a particular emergency,” Hagedorn wrote. “Beyond 60 days, however, the legislature reserves for itself the power to determine the policies that govern the state’s response to an ongoing problem. Similarly, when the legislature revokes a state of emergency, a governor may not simply reissue another one on the same basis.”


Sounds like a perfectly legal rational law and begs the question, why 3 dissenting votes for something so clearly and unambiguously written? Oh, yeah, I forgot, probably Liberals who don't much care what the law says, it's their feelings at the time that count.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

As to the Wisconsin decision,


“The plain language of the statute explains that the governor may, for 60 days, act with expanded powers to address a particular emergency,” Hagedorn wrote. “Beyond 60 days, however, the legislature reserves for itself the power to determine the policies that govern the state’s response to an ongoing problem. Similarly, when the legislature revokes a state of emergency, a governor may not simply reissue another one on the same basis.”


Sounds like a perfectly legal rational law and begs the question, why 3 dissenting votes for something so clearly and unambiguously written? Oh, yeah, I forgot, probably Liberals who don't much care what the law says, it's their feelings at the time that count.

It’s a 4/3 split there. 4 conservatives, 3 liberals.