Will there be a binding legal decision against indefinite lockdowns?

When will the first (binding, ultimate) legal victory against the lockdowns take place?

  • It will never happen

    Votes: 12 52.2%
  • Within 1 month

    Votes: 5 21.7%
  • Within 3 months

    Votes: 2 8.7%
  • Within 6 months or by the end of the year

    Votes: 4 17.4%

  • Total voters
    23
  • Poll closed .

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
Interesting points. Very plausible, at least as a portion of the overall explanation. Lenny, is this in general understood chaos everyone picks it up as in a dog whistle, or are they directly notified to carry out the "orders"?

Also, what do you see at the eventuality, then, given that the entirety of the situation is unsustainable? The major problem here is that it's more prepping since "life and death" truly isn't the reality. Yet.
The middle men such a governors wouldn't get "orders" in the way you'd think of a general giving an order. They would simply have consultants linked to globalist think-tanks who do the heavy-thinking for them and tell them what their objectives need to be. Then they'd get a phone call from a lobbyist representing their major donor(s) asking/telling "we hope you've given due consideration to that panel's findings, we all want to make sure we come out on the right side of this."

To some extent this all falls back to spiritual contractual obligation. A soldier getting an order is to some degree spiritually protected from the consequences of his actions in following that order. Those in service of the fallen one no matter their place in the hierarchy (lowerarchy?) must undertake their work willingly with the least amount of coercion necessary in order to secure their souls and their true subservience. The fallen one doesn't want anyone being able to say "I was just following orders" which despite the (((modern tropes))) is actually quite a reasonable defense in some circumstances.
 

Dr. Howard

Peacock
Gold Member
Wisconsin Tavern league has already advised all bars in the state to open, as even if they are now in violation there will be no way to uphold the penalty in court.

I hope the republican legislature does what they said and just leaves it to individual counties to set their rules.
Just read the ruling here: https://www.wpr.org/sites/default/files/wi_legislature_v._andrea_palm_-_decision.pdf

Basically, the Republican Court sided with the Republican Legislator that the Governor unlawfully gave DHS (an administrative agency) blank-check authority in violation of required Rulemaking procedures.

Open question: will this restrict 1) if governors themselves act, or 2) if mayors do? The Court seemed skeptical of Covid claims, but wary to be seen as overtly political.
WI resident and former state employee here. 1 of the dissenting judges was a republican so it wasn't entirely along party lines. The head of the supreme court is ultra conservative and has been a pain in the dem's butt since at least 2009. Overall though, I can't say that the supreme court in this state has been overly partisan in my time here.

I don't know if just having the governor act would have been a workaround, but mayors are free to act. For example, a number of county governments passed coronavirus restrictions within a half hour of the court ruling, which mimic the former state laws. Those counties also have a fair number of cases for the most part. My county, where we have 7 total cases, with 4 recovered even after mass testing passed no laws, neither did the neighboring county with 3 cases, 2 recovered.

Even in Grant county, which has cases at 135/100,000 residents, this was the scene at the bars in under an hour of the order being cancelled
video https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1rmGPAgPDmgJN
 
I'd love to see a binding legal decision against indefinite lockdowns, but I'm not very optimistic. I think Taleb's prediction is probably what's going to happen (emphasis mine):
Nassim Taleb said:
ADAPTATION
Do a total reset professionally, economically, personally. Treat this thing as if it were here to stay & make sure you can do with it. If it goes away, it will be a bonus but remember that the shadow of the following one will be progressively built into the system.
Source:
 

Magnus Stout

Sparrow
Dr. Howard: Courts like to pretend they’re above politics (they aren’t). Basically, it’s a myth perpetuated by legal training (the caselaw method, in which you “scientifically” derive rationale from published opinions to apply to current cases).

The WI Court carefully avoided limiting the governor’s power to act during an emergency. I think they should have answered that question: “No, governor, saying ‘pandemic’ is not a magical talisman to indefinitely suspend fundamental liberties. Any such act is presumed illegal unless it is narrowly tailored.” Time to call an ace an ace and a spade a spade.

Really sad to see so few lawyers and judges standing up against this obvious tyranny.

Result: The WI governor will likely tread more carefully in concert with the Legislature. Some idiot mayors will continue to push lockdown madness.

Emperor Constantine: I agree will need a direct decision on these issues. The only progress seems to be due to fighting between Inner Party factions (dems vs repubs).

Nassim (though usually brilliant) has been incredibly off on this pandemic—following the chicken little “sky is falling” people. I can’t find a single warning he’s made about this totalitarian overreach or the attack upon churches. He’s also remarkably ignorant about the legal system.

Nassim’s biggest flaw is his Pride. This crisis played to his obsession with risk management and personal validation of his academic models (interestingly: his modeling is incapable of being “wrong” on this issue, as the lowered death count serves to validate his model that early action was “right”). Perhaps he’s a bit on the “Spectrum” and has trouble reading between the lines or inferring ulterior motives (Dostoyevsky and Kafka are 1000x better in this regard). In any case, he lost the forest for the trees: “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, but lose his soul?” Mk 8:36.
 
Last edited:
I really like him as well, generally speaking, but have been very critical in his lack of understanding (true wisdom) regarding the virus. He's been off-base from the beginning, not even categorizing things well. What do you think he's been most off on legally speaking, in the USA, and why do you think he has stumbled with inference or calling out clear, disgusting behaviors? He has not had a problem in the past with his "IYI" derision of said types.
 

Magnus Stout

Sparrow
Nassim’s been most off base with regard to “skin in the game” for the legal system (no understanding or wrestling with *how* that’s really possible) and with the legal reactions during this pandemic (saying nurses could sue if they got sick without masks and ignoring illegal stay-home orders). I think his time as a finance guy has colored his views too much (finance is more rational than how bureaucracy operates).

I think the root of Nassim’s problem is his 1) lack of humility combined with 2) poor spiritual life. He claims he’s Orthodox, but that could be more a “cultural” identity than real conviction. He supports a form of evolution in his belief which is incompatible with what the Church Fathers taught. Taken together, that would explain why he’s been so off base with this pandemic: focused on pointless academic modeling while churches are being shuttered (while abortionists kept open), worshippers ticketed and threatened with jail.

If you are a materialist, then this pandemic is simple: sacrifice everything to preserve our mortal coils because the ends will justify the means. And, if this body is all we have (no soul), then it is the *duty* of government to do all it can to reduce this risk. That is more or less how I’ve read Nassim during this pandemic.

However, the Christian sees the goal of life is to be in communion with God; Satan’s opposite goal is the damnation of souls by rejecting Christ. The Christian sees this body as a shell and this world as fallen. The Christian is also obligated to Christ as well as the civil authorities (“render under Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”).

These authorities are not infrequently in conflict. Christians have an obligation to serve God above Man. The Church is eternal and its work shall continue until the end of time. Thus, the man who has spiritual discernment can see that the real effects of this pandemic (not the cloak of fake altruism) are really aimed at weakening man’s spiritual obligations to God—that Churches are “not essential.”

Men such as Dostoyevsky and Solzhenitsyn were more prescient and predictive because they were deeply spiritual. God’s light illuminated them to see deeper truths. To see, as St. Paul said: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Ephesians 6:12.
 
I think the root of Nassim’s problem is his 1) lack of humility combined with 2) poor spiritual life. He claims he’s Orthodox, but that could be more a “cultural” identity than real conviction. He supports a form of evolution in his belief which is incompatible with what the Church Fathers taught. Taken together, that would explain why he’s been so off base with this pandemic:
You assume he’s just culturally Orthodox, then you assume his beliefs regarding a scientific theory are incompatible with the teachings of the Church Fathers (who I assume, based on this fact, that you’ve never read more of than a few cherry-picked quotes in a 21st century book), and then suggest these two assumptions are the reason he’s wrong about coronavirus.

I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. I’ve seen him be right about a lot, and I’m in no rush to assume that when he’s wrong it’s because he’s a bad Christian.
 
He was wrong about the coronavirus and thus, the reaction. The main reason was that we actually had really good evidence that it wasn't that big of a deal --- we've dealt with that topic in other threads. I can't speak to the other stuff.
 

Magnus Stout

Sparrow
You assume he’s just culturally Orthodox, then you assume his beliefs regarding a scientific theory are incompatible with the teachings of the Church Fathers (who I assume, based on this fact, that you’ve never read more of than a few cherry-picked quotes in a 21st century book), and then suggest these two assumptions are the reason he’s wrong about coronavirus.

I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. I’ve seen him be right about a lot, and I’m in no rush to assume that when he’s wrong it’s because he’s a bad Christian.
NNT on religion: “Religion gives many people solace. On a personal note I have to admit that I feel more elevated in cathedrals than in stock markets — be it only on aesthetic grounds. If I were going to be gullible about a subject, I would rather pick one that is the least harmful to my future — and one that is rewarding to my thirst for aesthetics.” https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/taleb05/taleb05_index.html

NNT fairly critiques the obsessive “New Atheists,” but he explicitly assumes their framing (religion at best is primarily about aesthetics and culture). Only God knows NNT’s heart. I was offering a theory in response to a question about why he’s been so wrong about this pandemic.

NNT on Nature: "I'm a hyper-conservative ecologically. I don't want to mess with Mother Nature, OK. Even I don't believe that carbon thing is necessarily anthropogenic [man made], right. I just don't want to mess with Mother Nature. I don't understand Mother Nature. It is much more intelligent than us. It has been around for longer than anything else."

NNT constantly mentions evolution: “Progress, like evolution, must be neither too slow nor too fast. Too slow means extinction from lack of adaptation. Too fast prevents retaining the benefits of past improvements, hence, again, extinction.”

On Evolution and Orthodoxy: https://orthodoxwiki.org/Evolution. While change and development in nature is obvious, Christians must be very careful to accept the presuppositions of materialism (Evolution). I find Fr. Rose’s take the most persuasive and coherent: http://www.creatio.orthodoxy.ru/english/rose_genesis/index.html

While NNT is very intelligent & has written some good books, all human wisdom is flawed without God’s illuminating light. This crisis has at least one beneficial effect: revealing those who see the profound spiritual implications versus those who cannot. NNT has such a large platform (and is brave and willing to fight) that he could be an incredible asset to the Church.
 
Last edited:
He was wrong about the coronavirus and thus, the reaction. The main reason was that we actually had really good evidence that it wasn't that big of a deal --- we've dealt with that topic in other threads. I can't speak to the other stuff.
I agree with you that the virus does not appear to be a big deal, and that the response has therefore been completely out of proportion. But I think Taleb is right about two parts of it. First, the tweet I quoted above – that we can expect the response to be progressively built into the system. I hope he’s wrong, but I suspect he’s not. And second, I agree with him that the WHO is criminally incompetent, though for somewhat different reasons.
 
Only God knows NNT’s heart.
On this we agree. Please forgive my above sarcasm. Like Taleb, I am Orthodox, so I’m sure you understand why I am loathe to see my brother’s spiritual life so quickly judged. But that does not give me license to be a jerk about it.

On Evolution and Orthodoxy: https://orthodoxwiki.org/Evolution. While change and development in nature is obvious, Christians must be very careful to accept the presuppositions of materialism (Evolution).
I see. I assumed when you said evolution, you meant the change and development in nature. I did not realize you were referring the belief that nothing exists outside the material world. On materialism, we both agree. And, as far as I know, so does Taleb.

I find Fr. Rose’s take the most persuasive and coherent: http://www.creatio.orthodoxy.ru/english/rose_genesis/index.html
I’m in a bit over my head on this one: I don’t think Aquinas is quite the heresiarch that Fr. Seraphim makes him out to be. I think the Thomistic position on creation is in line with the teachings of the Fathers, but it will take someone much more adept than me to explain why. Especially given Fr. Seraphim’s sanctity and learning. I suspect Fr. Patrick Reardon can explain it, but I haven’t read his book on the subject yet.

NNT has such a large platform (and is brave and willing to fight) that he could be an incredible asset to the Church.
Absolutely.
 
Top