Wisconsin Judge Calls Democrat Stay-At-Home Order “TYRANNY”

(PresidentialWire.Com)- A conservative judge perfectly summed up the mood of the nation on Tuesday during oral arguments in a lawsuit filed by Republican legislators in Wisconsin. The lawsuit was filed by the Republican state legislators to stop the stay-at-home order put in place by Democratic Governor Tony Evers.

Judge Rebecca Bradley called the order “the very definition of tyranny.”

Some sanity, at least!

According to the Wisconsin State Journal, 90 minutes of argument were heard via video conference after Tony Evers and leaders of both the Democrats and Republicans in the state Legislature met to discuss a response to the coronavirus pandemic.

As of Tuesday afternoon, the local outlet reported, some 8,500 residents had fallen sick and 353 killed by the virus. The stay-at-home order was first issued on March 24 and later extended on April 16. It is due to expire on May 26.

Colin Roth, the State Assistant Attorney General, claimed that repealing the order would cause people to die, which prompted Judge Bradley to counter the claim.

“My question for you is, where in the constitution did the people of Wisconsin confer authority on a single, unelected Cabinet secretary to compel almost 6 million people to stay at home and close their businesses and face imprisonment if they don’t comply, with no input from the Legislature, without the consent of the people?” she said.


“Isn’t it the very definition of tyranny for one person to order people to be imprisoned for going to work, among other ordinarily lawful activists?” she also asked.

Roth responded by saying statute exists that gives people to the Department of Health Services to take measure to “combat a novel, deadly, communicable disease” like the coronavirus.

According to the Wisconsin State Journal, the court is now expected to decide on two issues. The first is whether Andrea Palm, the secretary-designee of the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, violate state law when she ordered the extension of the stay-at-home rules. The court will also decide whether the order went beyond the Department of Health Services’ authority by mandating that nonessential businesses close.

The ruling could set an incredible precedent, and come at a time when state governors wildly disagree about how to effectively manage the global pandemic.