You are the news now

THE NEWS COMMENTER

VOTE  (0)  (0)

Chuck Todd: The Michigan Supreme Court Did Not "Cite Any Cases" In Ruling Whitmer's Actions Unconstitutional

Added 10-18-20 11:55:02am EST - “Chuck Todd interviewed Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer this morning and turned to the recent decision of the Michigan Supreme Court that ruled that she had violated the Michigan Constitution in her ?” - Jonathanturley.org

CLICK TO SHARE

Posted By TheNewsCommenter: From Jonathanturley.org: “Chuck Todd: The Michigan Supreme Court Did Not “Cite Any Cases” In Ruling Whitmer’s Actions Unconstitutional”. Below is an excerpt from the article.

Chuck Todd interviewed Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer this morning and turned to the recent decision of the Michigan Supreme Court that ruled that she had violated the Michigan Constitution in her extended pandemic orders. Todd did not challenge Whitmer stating falsely that the opinion was a “partisan” decision. It was not. Democratic justices agreed that Whitmer violated the Constitution. They only disagreed on the remedy.  However, that untruth was quickly lost in what was a flagrantly untrue statement by Todd himself. He told NBC viewers that the justices did not cite any cases to support their decision against Whitmer. The roughly 50 opinion contains over 60 cases discussed in support of the decision. It does not seem to matter anymore at Meet The Press or NBC.  NBC is not alone. I previously noted how the Washington Post also has failed to correct openly false accounts of cases.  Not only is there no apparent inclination to be accurate but even less expectation to do so.

The Supreme Court found that Whitmer lacked authority under two laws — the Emergency Management Act from 1976 and the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act from 1945.  Justice Stephen J. Markman authored the majority opinion and wrote:

“We conclude that the Governor lacked the authority to declare a ‘state of emergency’ or a ‘state of disaster’ under the EMA after April 30, 2020, on the basis of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, we conclude that the EPGA is in violation of the Constitution of our state because it purports to delegate to the executive branch the legislative powers of state government– including its plenary police powers– and to allow the exercise of such powers indefinitely.

As a consequence, the EPGA cannot continue to provide a basis for the Governor to exercise emergency powers.”

The dissenting opinion authored by Chief Justice Bridget McCormack (with Justices McCormack, Richard Bernstein and Megan Cavanagh joining) drew a curious line. The dissenters agreed with the majority that Whitmer violated the Constitution and did not have the authority to extend the emergency orders but would uphold the EPGA because to facially invalidate the EPGA is unnecessary because there are other judicial remedies.”

Read more...

If you don't see any comments yet, congrats! You get first comment. Be nice and have fun.

CLICK TO SHARE

BACK TO THE HOME-PAGE