'Null and void': Baker County judge tosses out Oregon Gov. Brown's coronavirus restrictions

Let the revolution continue. About time these rogue governors are brought to task.

 

I don't get this notion to keep comparing Covid-19 against the flu. We have antivirals and vaccines for the flu. We have decades of data on the flu. We have none of that regarding Covid-19.

And while Covid-19 has only killed ~140 in Oregon (which is great) and that number happens to be roughly 1/3 of the flu deaths in Oregon, you are comparing roughly two months against an entire year. Plus, Covid-19 is just getting started and it has already killed more Americans than the worst seasonal flu nationwide.

Do not take this virus lightly. Even if the restrictions are going to be struck down, remain vigilant. Wear a mask. Wash your hands. Maintain social distancing and limit your travel.

 

Concur.

 

How much very real and substantial economic damage will it take for some states to simply follow the Constitution?

 

That didn’t last long.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.or...tate-supreme-court-review.html?outputType=amp

 

I have yet to see the Constitutional argument for overturning these restrictions. In both Oregon and Wisconsin, the decisions were based on the theory that Governors must consult with the legislators before enacting or extending these restrictions.

 

From the story:

"The Oregon Supreme Court late Monday halted a rural judge's order earlier in the day that had tossed out statewide coronavirus restrictions imposed by Democratic Gov. Kate Brown.

Baker County Circuit Judge Matthew Shirtcliff had ruled that Brown erred by not seeking the Legislature’s approval to extend the stay-at-home orders beyond a 28-day limit. The Supreme Court's ruling stays Shirtcliff's decision pending review by all the high court justices."

So this decision is worth nothing.

 

Never heard of the right to assembly? Evidently the Judges understand the Constitution. And you are a lawyer?

 

90,000 deaths in three months but its not as bad as the flu.

Nothing you can do with that. Pathetic!

 

And this is a moderator here!

 

The amazingnesisity of this legal argument is ginomorious!

 

The state constitution?

 

It's his only line of reasoning...He'll be telling that to St. Peter at the gate..

 

And a simple fact that escapes you. It's amazing you practice law if in fact you do.

 

So a state constitution can strip you of Constitutional rights? Do tell.

 

The peaceful right to assembly is not unlimited and Governments have the authority to limit a Constitutional Right so long as they can justify the law under despite a Strict Scrutiny analysis.

And here, protecting their citizens from a deadly pandemic which has killed tens of thousands of Americans and is projected to kill tens of thousands more, is a very compelling governmental interest.

 

The SCOTUS has actually ruled twice that states have the power of quarantine; Gibbons v. Ogden and Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health — just because the judges are doing what you want doesn’t mean they understand the constitution.

 

Did they rule you can quarantine the healthy? Regaurdless, would not be the first time the SC has trodden upon the Constitution.

 

Yes, the first was a state wide quarantine.
Should the state be allowed to quarantine people that are infectious for the safety of others? Because from the arguments I have seen made here it seems like many of the arguments would also apply to the sick person being violated their “constitutional rights”.

 

By the fourth of July wherever restrictions still exist people who never paid attention to politics will be marching with pitch forks, staves, ball bats, and shotguns.

 

I hope not, because that would make the situation worse and not better. Force only begets force, resistance only begets more resistance. Nothing will actually change that way. What will change things for the better, is a more open democratic process. And yes, even with the coronavirus we must have an open democratic process where elected leaders are not only accountable to the public, but engaging the public with the *why*, the strict scrutiny that Mrtlegal elaborates.

It's not enough to simply say "A lot of people are getting sick with COVID-19." We need to know how this virus is spreading(the CDC just released a great study on that related to California/Arkansas churches). We need to know definitively when we stop being contagious and some doctors referred to 'viral load' and figuring that out is part of the puzzle too.

At this stage of the game, it's no longer justifiable on anyone's part to act as though their head was cut off. We need intel and we need a game plan.

 

Separation of powers falls within the federal and state constitutions. Of course liberal tyrants like Kaiser Evers and Brown think they can rule by decree, thank goodness some of our judges still respect the Constitution...