Justice Gorsuch writes a masterful recap of the Covid lockdowns

Arizona v. Mayorkas is one of the cases dealing with Title 42.  Last week the Supreme Court issued a procedural order in the case, and Justice Gorsuch wrote a statement regarding that decision.  An edited version is below.

That statement began by summarizing the totalitarian response of federal and state governments to the China virus:

Since March of 2020 the U.S. has experienced the worst loss of civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country.  Government officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale.

Governors and mayors ordered Americans to remain in their homes. They ordered small businesses, schools, churches and restaurants closed, while allowing casinos, liquor stores, marijuana "dispensaries," massage parlors, big retail chains and other favored businesses to stay open.  

They imposed both civil and even criminal penalties on anyone who dared violate any of their draconian orders.

They ordered police to surveil church parking lots, record license plates and issue tickets to everyone attending even outdoor services that satisfied all social-distancing decrees.

"Health officials" divided cities and neighborhoods into color-coded zones, forcing citizens to fight for their freedoms in courts, then changed their color-coded schemes when defeat in court seemed imminent.

The federal government was equally lawless, using the CDC--ostensibly a health agency--to ban landlords from evicting non-paying tenants.  The fact that the CDC has no authority to do that should be obvious to everyone.

The biden administration used OSHA--a workplace-safety agency--to order companies with 100 or more employees to fire anyone who refused to take the experimental vaccine.  The administration allowed the Pentagon to discharge any members of the armed forces who refused the vaccine.

In one of the most grievous outrages, FBI official appear to have pressured social-media companies to delete posts containing information about the virus that the administration didn't like.

As executive officials issued new emergency decrees at a furious pace, state legislatures and Congress—the bodies normally responsible for writing our laws—too often fell silent.  Courts charged with protecting our liberties often allowed themselves to be used to support all manner of "emergency public-health decrees."

Many lessons can be learned from all this.  An obvious one is that fear is a powerful force, and that a serious threat can get people to accept almost any loss of freedom if the government claims the decree is needed to "keep you safe" from the perceived threat.

The threat of covid--which "experts" claimed was an unusually deadly virus--persuaded Americans to accept rule by decree instead of laws adopted by our representatives.  The threat of the virus got Americans to give up crucial liberties—the right to worship freely, to debate public policy without censorship, to gather with friends and family, or simply to leave our homes.

Roughly half of Americans even cheered government officials who demanded that we disregard normal lawmaking processes and surrender our personal freedoms.

But perhaps some have learned another lesson:  The concentration of power in the hands of so few may be efficient and sometimes popular, but does not tend toward sound government. However wise one person or his advisors may be, that is no substitute for the wisdom of the whole of the American people that can be tapped in the legislative process.

Decisions by those who permit no criticism are rarely as good as those produced after robust and uncensored debate.  Decisions made under pressure are rarely as wise as those made after careful deliberation.  And finally, decisions made by a few often have unforeseen consequences that could have been avoided by more debate.  

Autocracies have always suffered these defects.  Perhaps Americas have relearned these lessons.

In the 1970s Congress studied the use of emergency decrees.  It observed that they allow executive authorities to grab extraordinary powers.  Congress also observed that emergency decrees have a habit of long outliving the crises that generate them; some federal emergency proclamations, Congress noted, had remained in effect for years or decades after the emergency in question had passed.

At the same time Congress recognized that quick unilateral executive action is sometimes necessary and permitted in our constitutional order. In an effort to balance these considerations and ensure a more normal operation of our laws and a firmer protection of our liberties, Congress adopted a number of new guardrails in the National Emergencies Act.

Despite that law, the number of declared emergencies has only grown in the ensuing years. And it is hard not to wonder whether, after nearly a half century and in light of our Nation's recent experience, another look is warranted. It is hard not to wonder, too, whether state legislatures might profitably reexamine the proper scope of emergency executive powers at the state level.

There is no doubt that quick executive action is sometimes necessary and appropriate.  But emergency decrees issued to solve some problems always threaten to create others.  And rule by indefinite emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties just as hollow.

That's really well-reasoned stuff--which is why you won't read this in the Mainstream Media.

Source.

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/18/justice-gorsuch-on-covid-19-and-emergency-government/