This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
A lot of ideologues and partisans are flocking to this page not to convey information but to justify Stickman's Lochneresque ruling or protect him from the substantial criticism directed against it in legal circles. That ranges from suppressing/deleting the info that he was a Republican operative before his appointment, to deleting or at least minimizing the scope of criticism of the ruling that is allowed to be added to the page.
To be clear, Stickman's invocation of the almost universally discredited Lochner ruling has the purpose of reviving the legitimacy of the argument that government regulations and rules of all sort must pass a test which none of them can pass: are there any business owners who object to those regs/rules? If so, then the regulation in invalid constitutionally. It was an absurd position to take a century ago, and did vast damage to millions of Americans' lives.
The absurdity of trying to revive Lochner with regard to pandemic rules goes beyond Stickman's silly pretense that it never was repudiated, or his preference for strawmen arguments and rhetorical flourishes over laws and jurisprudence (no, there is no constitutionally guaranteed "right to work" or "right to pursue one's preferred profession"). It is the simple fact that during the depths of the Lochner era Court, the US faced another novel pandemic and defeated it using government regulations that were in many ways much more sweeping and intrusive than anything instituted this year in PA or elsewhere in the US. And those regulations in 1918 were allowed to stand because it would have been insanity to try to prevent government officials from using whatever tools they had available to contain the fatal virus...unless the regulations truly went beyond reasonable bounds and genuinely abused civil rights.
There has never been in the US a recognized right to ignore civil orders put in place to contain epidemics. These were considered normal functions of government even in the colonial period. In 1918 alone, civil authorities put in place severe restrictions FOR MORE EPIDEMICS THAN JUST THE SPANISH INFLUENZA! There were also measles and scarlet fever epidemics they had to deal with. All of that government regulation was treated as normal in 1918 at a time when the original Lochner extremists were in the driver's seat judicially.
Now we're supposed to believe that governors have to negotiate with every business owner in their state for permission to put life-saving measures in place? Absurd is the only word for what Stickman argued, and very many legal experts have weighed in on how dangerous his argument would be if anybody were to take it seriously.
I don't see a particularly good reason to include Dickinson's opinion, anon-notable academic who is also a political opponent, from a less than stellar source, which also had differing opinions. Per
WP:ONUS, consensus for this needs to be demonstrated here before being re-added to the article.
Trying to reconnect (
talk)
:::Ah no:
WP:ONUS "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."
Trying to reconnect (
talk)
01:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
:::::There's actually no consensus to include this as only two editors have added it (one of whom is not justifying there edits here on the talk page) , and two editors who removed it, based on policy reasons (
WP:NPOV,
WP:UNDUE,
WP:ONUS). If indeed "There is widespread criticism of Stickman's ruling" you should old have no problem finding a reliable source that says just that - that this ruling has been widely criticized. But you can't simply cherry-pick one criticism, from a non-notable source, and stick it in the article, while ignoring that in that very source there are opinions in support of the ruling.
Trying to reconnect (
talk)
00:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
:::::::For starters , stop personalizing this, stop the personal attacks, and stop making baseless assumptions about me or my motivations. I won't warn you again. Next, you did not cite two sources in the the section I removed from the article, you cited one source - "PA Spotlight" - not exactly a high quality mainstream source. And from that article, you cherry picked Dickinson's opinion, ignoring two other opinions, one by Roddy which called Stickman’s decision “fairly moderate,” and one by Bruce Ledewitz, a constitutional law professor at Duquesne University, who said it's far from a given that the Third Circuit will overturn Stickman’s decision. Bottom line: You need to do at least one of the following thee things: (1) Get consensus on this page to include the materiel that was already removed by two editors or (2) find a source that says "Stickman's decision was widely criticized" or (3) balance your one-sided characterization with opposing vies, in order to preserve
WP:NPOV
Trying to reconnect (
talk)
04:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
:::::: we're not got to get anywhere with this kind of debate. Get consensus for you position, or it's out-
WP:ONUS
Trying to reconnect (
talk)
20:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
::::::::The onus for demonstrating consensus is on those wishing to include disputed material. Both me and
Marquardtika have objected to this content, while you seem to be the only one trying to edit war it back in, without consensus.
Trying to reconnect (
talk)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
Should the analysis of Stickman's ruling in Butler v. Wolf include multiple points of view from legal sources, or is the current description, describing it as relying on Lochner appropriate? Trying to reconnect ( talk) 20:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
[Adding, to clarify and elaborate: would the text suggested by User:Tchouppy, work better than the current article version?] Trying to reconnect ( talk) 19:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Ok- I did a generic google search for stories regarding this ruling and looked at 20 to 30 articles from reliable news sources and the only sources to mention any specific criticism or mention Lochner at all are the two that the IP editor introduced. First of all, wikipedia is not a legal analysis blog- all rulings have criticisms and it's not wikipedia's job to go into specific legal disagreements of every case on the judge's page. Two it's not "widespread criticism" as IP editor claims if only a small fraction of the reliable sources are covering it. Yes, people are going to disagree with the ruling but that generic criticism discussion does not need to involve this Lochner stuff.
I believe the following would better represent the majority of the reliable news sources.
On September 14, 2020, Stickman ruled that the restrictions on business activities and large public gatherings issued by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf to halt the spread of the coronavirus were unconstitutional, violating the right to freedom of assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment.[7][8] Stickman wrote that “There is no question that this country has faced, and will face, emergencies of every sort,” Stickman wrote. “But the solution to a national crisis can never be permitted to supersede the commitment to individual liberty that stands as the foundation of the American experiment.” [1] [2] [3] Governor Wolf's office stated that "The administration is disappointed with the result and will seek a stay of the decision and file an appeal.... This decision is especially worrying as Pennsylvania and the rest of the country are likely to face a challenging time with the possible resurgence of COVID-19 and the flu in the fall and winter.” [4] The Wolf administration filed an appeal for a stay of the ruling. [5]
It is important to remember that Wikipedia is encyclopedic in nature and not a forum for every disagreement, criticism, or praise to be discussed. Tchouppy ( talk) 16:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Given Stickman's ruling is current stayed by the Third Circuit, pending appeal I think the section should stay as is at least until there is some ruling by the Third Circuit (I'm Australian so I'm not sure how your system works so excuse me if I've made a technical error). Wikipedia is not a running commentary. AlanS talk 04:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
References
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
A lot of ideologues and partisans are flocking to this page not to convey information but to justify Stickman's Lochneresque ruling or protect him from the substantial criticism directed against it in legal circles. That ranges from suppressing/deleting the info that he was a Republican operative before his appointment, to deleting or at least minimizing the scope of criticism of the ruling that is allowed to be added to the page.
To be clear, Stickman's invocation of the almost universally discredited Lochner ruling has the purpose of reviving the legitimacy of the argument that government regulations and rules of all sort must pass a test which none of them can pass: are there any business owners who object to those regs/rules? If so, then the regulation in invalid constitutionally. It was an absurd position to take a century ago, and did vast damage to millions of Americans' lives.
The absurdity of trying to revive Lochner with regard to pandemic rules goes beyond Stickman's silly pretense that it never was repudiated, or his preference for strawmen arguments and rhetorical flourishes over laws and jurisprudence (no, there is no constitutionally guaranteed "right to work" or "right to pursue one's preferred profession"). It is the simple fact that during the depths of the Lochner era Court, the US faced another novel pandemic and defeated it using government regulations that were in many ways much more sweeping and intrusive than anything instituted this year in PA or elsewhere in the US. And those regulations in 1918 were allowed to stand because it would have been insanity to try to prevent government officials from using whatever tools they had available to contain the fatal virus...unless the regulations truly went beyond reasonable bounds and genuinely abused civil rights.
There has never been in the US a recognized right to ignore civil orders put in place to contain epidemics. These were considered normal functions of government even in the colonial period. In 1918 alone, civil authorities put in place severe restrictions FOR MORE EPIDEMICS THAN JUST THE SPANISH INFLUENZA! There were also measles and scarlet fever epidemics they had to deal with. All of that government regulation was treated as normal in 1918 at a time when the original Lochner extremists were in the driver's seat judicially.
Now we're supposed to believe that governors have to negotiate with every business owner in their state for permission to put life-saving measures in place? Absurd is the only word for what Stickman argued, and very many legal experts have weighed in on how dangerous his argument would be if anybody were to take it seriously.
I don't see a particularly good reason to include Dickinson's opinion, anon-notable academic who is also a political opponent, from a less than stellar source, which also had differing opinions. Per
WP:ONUS, consensus for this needs to be demonstrated here before being re-added to the article.
Trying to reconnect (
talk)
:::Ah no:
WP:ONUS "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."
Trying to reconnect (
talk)
01:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
:::::There's actually no consensus to include this as only two editors have added it (one of whom is not justifying there edits here on the talk page) , and two editors who removed it, based on policy reasons (
WP:NPOV,
WP:UNDUE,
WP:ONUS). If indeed "There is widespread criticism of Stickman's ruling" you should old have no problem finding a reliable source that says just that - that this ruling has been widely criticized. But you can't simply cherry-pick one criticism, from a non-notable source, and stick it in the article, while ignoring that in that very source there are opinions in support of the ruling.
Trying to reconnect (
talk)
00:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
:::::::For starters , stop personalizing this, stop the personal attacks, and stop making baseless assumptions about me or my motivations. I won't warn you again. Next, you did not cite two sources in the the section I removed from the article, you cited one source - "PA Spotlight" - not exactly a high quality mainstream source. And from that article, you cherry picked Dickinson's opinion, ignoring two other opinions, one by Roddy which called Stickman’s decision “fairly moderate,” and one by Bruce Ledewitz, a constitutional law professor at Duquesne University, who said it's far from a given that the Third Circuit will overturn Stickman’s decision. Bottom line: You need to do at least one of the following thee things: (1) Get consensus on this page to include the materiel that was already removed by two editors or (2) find a source that says "Stickman's decision was widely criticized" or (3) balance your one-sided characterization with opposing vies, in order to preserve
WP:NPOV
Trying to reconnect (
talk)
04:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
:::::: we're not got to get anywhere with this kind of debate. Get consensus for you position, or it's out-
WP:ONUS
Trying to reconnect (
talk)
20:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
::::::::The onus for demonstrating consensus is on those wishing to include disputed material. Both me and
Marquardtika have objected to this content, while you seem to be the only one trying to edit war it back in, without consensus.
Trying to reconnect (
talk)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
Should the analysis of Stickman's ruling in Butler v. Wolf include multiple points of view from legal sources, or is the current description, describing it as relying on Lochner appropriate? Trying to reconnect ( talk) 20:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
[Adding, to clarify and elaborate: would the text suggested by User:Tchouppy, work better than the current article version?] Trying to reconnect ( talk) 19:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Ok- I did a generic google search for stories regarding this ruling and looked at 20 to 30 articles from reliable news sources and the only sources to mention any specific criticism or mention Lochner at all are the two that the IP editor introduced. First of all, wikipedia is not a legal analysis blog- all rulings have criticisms and it's not wikipedia's job to go into specific legal disagreements of every case on the judge's page. Two it's not "widespread criticism" as IP editor claims if only a small fraction of the reliable sources are covering it. Yes, people are going to disagree with the ruling but that generic criticism discussion does not need to involve this Lochner stuff.
I believe the following would better represent the majority of the reliable news sources.
On September 14, 2020, Stickman ruled that the restrictions on business activities and large public gatherings issued by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf to halt the spread of the coronavirus were unconstitutional, violating the right to freedom of assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment.[7][8] Stickman wrote that “There is no question that this country has faced, and will face, emergencies of every sort,” Stickman wrote. “But the solution to a national crisis can never be permitted to supersede the commitment to individual liberty that stands as the foundation of the American experiment.” [1] [2] [3] Governor Wolf's office stated that "The administration is disappointed with the result and will seek a stay of the decision and file an appeal.... This decision is especially worrying as Pennsylvania and the rest of the country are likely to face a challenging time with the possible resurgence of COVID-19 and the flu in the fall and winter.” [4] The Wolf administration filed an appeal for a stay of the ruling. [5]
It is important to remember that Wikipedia is encyclopedic in nature and not a forum for every disagreement, criticism, or praise to be discussed. Tchouppy ( talk) 16:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Given Stickman's ruling is current stayed by the Third Circuit, pending appeal I think the section should stay as is at least until there is some ruling by the Third Circuit (I'm Australian so I'm not sure how your system works so excuse me if I've made a technical error). Wikipedia is not a running commentary. AlanS talk 04:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
References