Keeping your entire citizenry under house arrest and not allowing them to travel because of an alleged doomsday mystery virus is perfectly constitutional apparently. Who would have ever thought?
A Michigan court on Wednesday ruled that Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s (D) stringent stay-at-home order in response to the coronavirus outbreak does not violate residents’ constitutional rights, denying a motion for a preliminary injunction.
A group of five Michigan residents filed a lawsuit against the governor and other state officials claiming that the quarantine measures infringed on their constitutional rights to procedural and substantive due process. They also alleged that the state’s Emergency Management Act was unconstitutional.
The Michigan Court of Claims rejected both allegations, ruling that an injunction against Whitmer’s order would not serve the public interest, “despite the temporary harm to plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.”
“Although the Court is painfully aware of the difficulties of living under the restrictions of these executive orders, those difficulties are temporary, while to those who contract the virus and cannot recover (and to their family members and friends), it is all too permanent,” Court of Claims Judge Christopher M. Murray wrote.
The outbreak of the coronavirus has led to a number of stay-at-home orders throughout the nation, as governors work to implement measures to slow the spread of the disease.
Whitmer first issued social distancing restrictions on March 24, suspending all activities “not necessary to sustain or protect life.”
She has since extended the order through May 15, though the latest directive allows for some nonessential businesses to begin reopening.
The state’s restrictions have been met with outrage from some residents, and President Trump earlier this month voiced support for those protesting Whitmer’s order. Protesters descended on the governor’s home last week to voice opposition to the executive actions.
In his ruling, Murray noted that the interests of “liberty” that the plaintiffs spoke of are “and always have been, subject to society’s interests.”
This is pure lunacy.
Based on the ruling made by this stupid fuck of a judge, the government can ban anything based on any theory that their ban is in society’s interests.
They could ban McDonald’s from selling Big Macs because the government thinks Big Macs make people fat and eating the Big Macs could cause them disease and death.
How about motorcycles? Well, there are many motorcycle deaths that occur every year, so why don’t we just ban those too?
You could make these arguments about almost anything. So to say that this ruling from the cunt governor is somehow constitutional, is pure insanity. The interests of liberty do not trump what the judge says is “society’s interests.” There is nothing describing such a concept within the Constitution. This is just some nonsensical pseudo-gibberish the judge pulled out of his ass.
But if this judge thinks this order is in “society’s interests” that judge is an insane retard. The order has destroyed the state’s economy and is going to leave numerous people without food, shelter or the means to provide for their family. There’s already mass protests and the longer this continues, you’ll have riots and targeted assassination attempts against political figures who supported this.
The end result of this, could even be a literal apocalypse, but I guess that would somehow be good for society. Right?
