The Michigan Supreme Courtroom Did Not “Cite Any Regulation” In Ruling Whitmer’s Actions Unconstitutional – Thelegaltorts

0
21
The Michigan Supreme Court Did Not “Cite Any Law” In Ruling Whitmer’s Actions Unconstitutional – JONATHAN TURLEY

<img data-attachment-id = "156114" data-permalink = "https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/11/chuck-todds-inadvertent-journalism/b64fdd78-ff16-11e6-bf00-4be039112d75_1280x720/" data -orig-file = "https://i1.wp.com/jonathanturley.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/b64fdd78-ff16-11e6-bf00-4be039112d75_1280x720.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1" data-orig-size = "1200,800" data-comment-opens = "1" data-image-meta = "{" aperture ":" 0 "," credit ":" "," camera ":" ", "caption": "", "created_timestamp": "0", "copyright": "", "focal_length": "0", "iso": "0", "shutter_speed": "0", "title": "", "Orientation": "0"} "data-image-title =" Chuck Todd "data-image-description ="

Chuck Todd NBC Meet the Press

"data-medium-file =" https://i1.wp.com/jonathanturley.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/b64fdd78-ff16-11e6-bf00-4be039112d75_1280x720.png?fit=300%2C200&ssl= 1 "data-large-file =" https://i1.wp.com/jonathanturley.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/b64fdd78-ff16-11e6-bf00-4be039112d75_1280x720.png?fit=845%2C564&ssl = 1 "load =" lazy "class =" size-medium wp-image-156114 "src =" https://i1.wp.com/jonathanturley.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/b64fdd78-ff16 -11e6-bf00-4be039112d75_1280x720.png? Resize = 300% 2C200 & ssl = 1 "alt =" "width =" 300 "height =" 200 "srcset =" https://i1.wp.com/jonathanturley.org/wp- content / uploads / 2020/05 / b64fdd78-ff16-11e6-bf00-4be039112d75_1280x720.png? resize = 300% 2C200 & ssl = 1 300w, https://i1.wp.com/jonathanturley.org/wp-content/uploads/2020 /05/b64fdd78-ff16-11e6-bf00-4be039112d75_1280x720.png?resize=1024 % 2C683 & ssl = 1 1024w, https://i1.wp.com/jonathanturley.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/b64fdd78- ff16-11e6-bf00-4be039112d75_1280x720.png? resize = 768% 2C512 & ssl = 1 768w, https://i1.wp.com/jonathantu rley.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/b64fdd78-ff16-11e6-bf00-4be039112d75_1280x720.png?resize= 150% 2C100 & ssl = 1 150w, https://i1.wp.com/jonathanturley.org/wp -content / uploads / 2020/05 / b64fdd78-ff16-11e6-bf00-4be039112d75_1280x720.png? w = 1200 & ssl = 1 1200w "size =" (maximum width: 300px) 100vw, 300px "data-recalc-dims =" 1 "/> Screenshot / Youtube

Chuck Todd interviewed Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer this morning and turned to the recent Michigan Supreme Court ruling that she violated the Michigan Constitution in her expanded pandemic orders. Todd did not challenge Whitmer, falsely claiming that the opinion was a "partisan" decision. It was not. The "democratic judges" agreed that Whitmer was breaking the constitution. They just didn't agree on the remedy. This untruth, however, was quickly lost in an apparently untrue statement by Todd himself. He told NBC viewers that the judges did not cite any law to support their decision against Whitmer. Todd stated as a fact that the court "cited no Michigan law, they cited no law to determine that you did not have that authority". The approximately 50-page opinion contains over 60 cases that were discussed in support of the decision. With Meet The Press or NBC that doesn't seem to matter anymore. NBC is not alone. I noted earlier that the Washington Post also failed to openly correct false reports on cases. Not only is there no apparent tendency to be specific, but there is even less expectation to be.

The Supreme Court found that Whitmer had no authority under two laws – the Emergency Management Act of 1976 and the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act of 1945. Judge Stephen J. Markman drafted 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 based on the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, we come to the conclusion that the EPGA violates the constitution of our state because it purports to delegate the legislative powers of the state government – including its police powers in plenary – to the executive branch and to allow the exercise of these powers for an indefinite period.

As a result, the EPGA can no longer provide a basis for the governor to exercise emergency powers. "

Chief Justice Bridget McCormack's dissenting opinion (with Justices McCormack, Richard Bernstein, and Megan Cavanagh) drew a curious line. The dissidents agreed with a majority that Whitmer was in violation of the constitution and had no power to extend the emergency orders, but that the EPGA would be upheld as unnecessary invalidation of the EPGA is not required as there are other remedies. "

This case came to the trial after a federal district court upheld state law issues dealing with the constitutionality of Whitmer's actions.

Apparently, the Michigan Supreme Court has written extensively on the "law" contained in the Michigan statutes and the Michigan Constitution. The other law is found in case law.

I understand that Todd may have lost interest in reading the actual opinion, but the first quote is on page 3 at the beginning of the analysis. The quote is from Gundy versus USA, 588 US ___, ___; 139 S Ct 2116, 2145; 204 L Ed 2d 522 (2019) (Gorsuch, J., Dissens).

Here are over 60 such cases that Todd insisted on were not cited (some that have been cited repeatedly):

Gundy v USA, 588 US ___, ___; 139 S Ct 2116, 2145; 204 L Ed 2d 522 (2019) (Gorsuch, J., different)

In re Sanders, 495 Mich 394, 404; 852 NW2d 524 (2014)

Taylor v Gate Pharm, 468 Mich 1, 6; 658 NW2d 127 (2003)

Vol of Trustees of Univ of Alabama v Garrett, 531 US 356,363; 121 S Ct 955; 148 L Ed 2d 866 (2001)

Kentucky v Graham, 473 US 159, 166; 105 S Ct 3099; 87 L Ed 2d 114 (1985)

Lapides v. Volume of the Regents of the Univ Sys of Georgia, 535 US 613, 618; 122 S Ct 1640; 152 L Ed 2d 806 (2002)

Cunningham v Neagle, 135 U.S. 1; 10 S Ct 658; 34 L Ed 55 (1890)

House of Representatives Mich versus Governor, May 21, 2020 (file number 20-000079-MZ); Slip op at 23-24

Immigration & Naturalization Serv v Chadha, 462 US 919; 103 S Ct 2764; 77 L Ed 2d 317 (1983),

Blank versus Dep’t of Corrections, 462 Mich 103, 113; 611 NW2d 530 (2000) (Comment from KELLY, J.)

Immigration & Naturalization Serv v Chadha, 462 US 919, 955 n 19; 103 S Ct 2764; 77 L Ed 2d 317 (1983)

Dist of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570,578; 128 S Ct 2783; 171 L Ed 2d 637 (2008)

In re MCI Telecom Complaint, 460 Mich 396, 414; 596 NW2d 164 (1999)

Garg v Macomb Co Community Mental Health Servs, 472 Mich 263, 284n 10; 696 NW2d 646 (2005)

Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439, 467; 613 NW2d 307 (2000)

People ex rel Hill v Lansing Vol by Ed, 224 Mich 388, 391; 195 NW 95 (1923)

Grebner versus State, 480 Mich 939, 940 (2007)

Clinton v City of New York, 524 US 417, 482; 118 S Ct 2091; 141 L Ed 2d 393 (1998) (Breyer, J., different)

46th Circuit Trial Court v Crawford Co, 476 Mich 131, 141; 719 NW2d 553 (2006)

Mistretta v USA, 488 US 361, 419; 109 S Ct 647; 102 L Ed 2d 714 (1989) (Scalia, J., 23 Dissens).

Marshall Field & Co v. Clark, 143, US 649, 693-694; 12 S Ct 495; 36 L Ed 294 (1892)

Blue Cross & Blue Shield from Mich vs. Milliken, 422 Mich 1, 51; 367 NW2d 1 (1985)

Department of Natural Resources v Seaman, 396 Mich 299, 308-309; 240 NW2d 206 (1976)

Osius versus St. Clair Shores, 344 Mich 693, 698; 75 NW2d 25 (1956)

Gundy v USA, 588 US ___, ___; 139 S Ct 2116, 2123; 204 L Ed 2d 522 (2019) (Comment from Kagan, J.)

Dep’t of Transp versus Ass’n of American Railroads, 575 US 43, 77; 135 S Ct 1225; 191 L Ed 2d 153 (2015) (Thomas, J., according)

Whitman v American Trucking Associations, Inc, 531 US 457, 475; 121 S Ct 903; 149 L Ed 2d 1 (2001)

Synar v USA, 626 F Supp 1374, 1386 (D DC, 1986)

Int & # 39; l Refugee Assistance Project v Trump, 883 F3d 233, 293 (CA 4, 2018) (Gregory, C.J., Consistent)

Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, 585 US ___; 138 S Ct 2710 (2018)

Michigan v US 26 Environmental Protection Agency, 341 US App DC 306, 323; 213 F3d 663 (2000)

Schechter Poultry Corp v USA, 295 US 495, 539; 55 S Ct 837; 79 L Ed 1570 (1935)

United States v Robel, 389, US 258, 275; 88 S Ct 419; 19 L Ed 2d 508 (1967) (Brennan, J., agrees with the result)

United States v Touby, 909 F2d 759, 767 (CA 3, 1990)

United States v Emerson, 846 F2d 541, 545 (CA 9, 1988)

Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO v Connally, 337 F Supp 737, 754 (D DC, 1971)

Marran v Baird, 635 A2d 1174, 1181 (RI, 1994)

Connor versus Herrick, 349 Mich 201, 217; 84 NW2d 427 (1957)

Bolden v Grand Rapids Operating Corp, 239 Mich 318, 321; 214 NW 241 (1927)

Walsh v River Rouge, 385 Mich 623, 639; 189 NW2d 318 (1971)

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co v Sawyer, 343 US 579, 652-653; 72 S Ct 863; 96 L Ed 1153 (1952) (Jackson, J., according)

Mich Farm Bureau versus Bureau of Workmen & # 39; s Compensation, 408 Mich 141; 289 NW2d 699 (1980)

American Radio Relay League, Inc v Fed Communications Comm, 199 US App DC 293, 297; 617 F2d 875 (1980)

Touby versus USA, 500 US 160; 111 S Ct 1752; 114 L Ed 2d 219 (1991),

Opinion of the judges, 315 Mass 761; 52 NE2d 974 (1944)

Home Bldg & Loan Ass & # 39; n vs. Blaisdell, 290 US 398, 425; 54 S Ct 231; 78 L Ed 413 (1934)

Panama Refining Co v Ryan, 293 US 388; 55 S Ct 241; 79 L Ed 446 (1935)

Schechter Poultry Corp, 295 US 495

In a renewed invitation to comment on the constitutionality of 2011 PA 38, 490 Mich 295, 345; 806 NW2d 683 (2011)

Eastwood Park Amusement Co v East Detroit Mayor, 325 Mich 60, 72; 38 NW2d 77 (1949)

Marbury v Madison, 5 US (1 Cranch) 137, 176; 2 L Ed 60 (1803)

USA v Nixon, 418 US 683; 94 S Ct 3090; 41 L Ed 2d 1039 (1974)

Clinton v Jones, 520 U.S. 681; 117 S Ct 1636; 137 L Ed 2d 945 (1997)

Immigration & Naturalization Serv v Chadha, 462 US 919, 955 n 19; 103 S Ct 2764; 77 L Ed 2d 317 (1983)

Trump versus Hawaii, 585 US ___; 138 S Ct 2392; 201 L Ed 2d 775 (2018)

Train against New York City, 420 US 35; 95 S Ct 839; 43 L Ed 2d 1 (1975)

People versus Tanner, 496 Mich 199, 221; 853 NW2d 653 (2014)

New York Central Securities Corp v USA, 287 US 12; 53 S Ct 45; 77 L Ed 138 (1932)

Fed Radio Comm v Nelson Bros Bond & Mortgage Co, 289 US 266; 53 S Ct 627; 77 L Ed 1166 (1933)

Yakus v USA, 321 US 414; 64 S Ct 660; 88 L Ed 834 (1944)

Clinton v City of New York, 524 US 417, 482; 118 S Ct 2091; 141 L Ed 2d 393 (1998) (Breyer, J., different)

As for Todd's factual statement that the majority of the Michigan Supreme Court cited no case, the judges quoted an average of a few case citations per page in their 50-page statement. * This does not apply to repeated citations of regulations and sources as diverse as the writings of John Locke.

For scholars who have called for an end to objectivity in journalism, Meet the Press offers.

Here's the decision: In re Certified Questions

* This is average as there are multiple citations on one page and some not.

Like this:

To like Loading…