Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    VIDEO – Wisconsin Sup. Ct. Justice: Isn’t state’s lockdown order “the very definition of tyranny?”

    VIDEO – Wisconsin Sup. Ct. Justice: Isn’t state’s lockdown order “the very definition of tyranny?”

    Oral argument heard today in lawsuit by legislature contesting state official’s authority to impose the ‘safer-at-home’ lockdown.

    The Wisconsin Supreme Court heard oral argument via video in the case brought by the Wisconsin legislature contesting the authority of state officials to impose a lockdown order.

    We covered the case before, please refer to those posts for background:

    The full video of the argument is at the bottom of this post. These comments by Republican Justice Rebecca Bradley are getting a lot of attention:

    “Where in the Constitution did the people of Wisconsin confer authority on a single, un-elected cabinet secretary to compel almost 6 mil people to stay at home, close their businesses & face imprisonment if they don’t comply… Isn’t it the very definition of tyranny?”

    I didn’t have time today to watch the whole argument, so I can’t express a view on who did better and who did worse, so draw your own conclusios. From the reactions I’m seeing on social media, supporters of continuing the lockdown are expecting a loss.

    Here’s the full livestream:


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Strelnikov | May 6, 2020 at 12:38 pm

    “There is no stronger argument against electing judges than the Wisconsin Supreme Court.”

    Yes, we must never let the proles have any say in who rules them. It must be us or no one.

    chocopot: But many of them are.

    Which diseases are both highly contagious, highly dangerous, and with community spread?

    lawdoc | May 7, 2020 at 1:31 am

    Tuberculosis, ebola, legionella, listeriosis, influenza, polio, dysentery, and many more.

    i watched some of the longer video. the state’s atty had a tough job. a few of the other justices pressed a similar line of argument.
    in each instance the state’s atty seemed like he knew he was in a weak position. he was often using a circular argument. it was constitutional because it hadn’t been struck down.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Send this to a friend