Even though the American people have been dealing with the coronavirus crisis for months on end, there is still plenty of arguing and adjudicating to be had on the subject.
For some, we’ve still not struck the correct balance between economic protection and medical assistance, while others believe that the federal government’s contributions to the suddenly impoverished should be greatly increased, and often.
The national response has left a lot of room for states to decide how best to handle the situation, and there are as many different approaches to the task as there are governors and mayors. In Michigan, Governor Gretchen Whitmer took an incredibly strict approach to quarantines and lockdowns, drawing criticisms from the Wolverine State as well as the rest of the nation.
This week, the Michigan Supreme Court had something to say about it.
On October 2, the Court ruled that the 1945 law Whitmer has been using to justify a “state of emergency” and her lockdown orders was unconstitutional, effectively negating any executive orders related to it.
Whitmer asked for an extension until the end of October, but was denied.
“(The) Supreme Court ruling, handed down by a narrow majority of Republican justices, is deeply disappointing, and I vehemently disagree with the court’s interpretation of the Michigan Constitution,” she said.
“Right now, every state and the federal government have some form of declared emergency. With this decision, Michigan will become the sole outlier at a time when the Upper Peninsula is experiencing rates of Covid infection not seen in our state since April.”
Fears of a massive second wave of coronavirus deaths have been a motivating factor for politicians who’ve remained steadfast in their lockdown strategies, but without assistance from the federal government, support for continuing this economic stagnation will erode…and quickly.
Become an insider!
Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.