April 25, 2020

Wendy Bell, Ryan Deto and Governor Wolf

Luckily, the City Paper's Ryan Deto has already done most (if not all) of the heavy lifting to this story:
A large majority of Pennsylvanians approve of both the social distancing guidelines currently under order in the commonwealth due to coronavirus and of Gov. Tom Wolf's job at handling the pandemic.

But these facts don’t seem to care about Wendy Bell’s feelings.

Despite a recent poll showing only 17% percent of Pennsylvanians think the social distance orders are too strict, and 59% of Pennsylvanians approving of Wolf’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, Bell still managed to claim the opposite during an April 24 broadcast of her show on KDKA Radio.

In fact, she went as far as to claim that Pennsylvanians are victims under Wolf’s orders and said that those who disagree with the closures are like the victims of the Benghazi attacks of 2012.
There's one place that I'd like to address that Deto doesn't. A few minutes before the Benghazi stuff, Bell says this:
There is this tremendous disconnect between people who are struggling right now - the millions upon millions of us who are struggling right now in the midst of this pandemic, the shutdown, some of these highly totalitarian restrictive closures by these governors who think they have the ability to just blanket rule whether or not you have the ability to go out and make a living or feed your family, right?
So Governor Wolf's closures are not only restrictive but totalitarian. And she only thinks that he has the authority to make such "blanket" rules.

So DOES Governor Wolf have that authority?

Let's take a look at the Governor's Stay At Home order. It includes this:
WHEREAS, as of March 6, 2020, I proclaimed the existence of a disaster emergency throughout the Commonwealth pursuant to 35 Pa. C.S. § 7301(c)
And so what does 35 Pa. C.S. § 7301(c) say?
A disaster emergency shall be declared by executive order or proclamation of the Governor upon finding that a disaster has occurred or that the occurrence or the threat of a disaster is imminent. The state of disaster emergency shall continue until the Governor finds that the threat or danger has passed or the disaster has been dealt with to the extent that emergency conditions no longer exist and terminates the state of disaster emergency by executive order or proclamation...
And then there's this:
WHEREAS, these means include isolation, quarantine, and any other control measure needed. 35 P.S. § 521.5.
And so what does 35 P.S. § 521.5 say?
Upon the receipt by a local board or department of health or by the department, as the case may be, of a report of a disease which is subject to isolation, quarantine, or any other control measure, the local board or department of health or the department shall carry out the appropriate control measures in such manner and in such place as is provided by rule or regulation.
There are more regulations but you get the picture. Looks like Governor Wolf does have the authority to declare a state of emergency and to declare a shelter in place directive. What Wendy Bell calls "totalitarian" is actually quite legal.

And considering how many Americans have died on Trump's watch (more than 50,000), absolutely necessary. Lifting the shelter in place one day early would mean more people will die.

Just so that the economy will get healthy sooner rather than later.

Any sort of comparison between that and Benghazi is just bat-shit crazie.


Social Justice NPC Anti-Paladin™ said...

The PA TITLE 18 CHAPTER 57 WIRETAPPING AND ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE was used to prevent people from recording the police until it was challenged in court.

The same can happen with 35 Pa. C.S. § 7301(c)

"There are more regulations but you get the picture."
I suspect you are handwaving away that he cannot house arrest the entire state without due process.

Zeus0209 said...

Re. Due Process:

Under the federalist system of the United States, state governments have the general authority, within constitutional limits, to enact laws “to provide for the public health, safety, and morals” of the states’ inhabitants...

In 1905, the Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts upheld a state law that gave municipal boards of health the authority to require the vaccination of persons over the age of 21 against smallpox, determining that the vaccination program had a “real and substantial relation to the protection of the public health and safety.” In doing so, the Court rejected the argument that such a program violated a liberty interest that, under more modern jurisprudence, would likely have been asserted as a substantive due process right. Less than two decades
later, in Zucht v. King, parents of a child who was excluded from school due to her unvaccinated status challenged the local ordinance requiring vaccinations for schoolchildren, arguing that the ordinance violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Relying on Jacobson, the Supreme Court rejected the constitutional challenges, concluding that “it is within the police power of a State to provide for compulsory vaccination” and that the ordinance did not bestow “arbitrary power, but only that broad discretion required for the protection of the public health.”

SCOTUS - Bunch of totalitarianist wankers

Social Justice NPC Anti-Paladin™ said...


PA 90 day/indefinite Stay at Home/House Arrest order is not a law.
I will be funny to see if 35 Pa. C.S. § 7301(c) gets overturned, amended, revised or appealed.

Let us see how the unconstitutional PA 90 day/indefinite Stay at Home/House Arrest order stands up in court.

I am guessing dismissed under Qualified Immunity.