Pushback Against The "New Normal"

A consensus has begun to emerge that stay-at-home orders, which began in March, were accepted by the public on the basis of projections that there would be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of COVID deaths in a period of coming weeks, and if citizens would voluntarily surrender basic natural law rights for a limited period, it would "flatten the curve", avoid overwhelming medical facilities, and allow the world to recover over a priod of limited, voluntarily shared hardship.

However, this rationale began to collapse almost immediately when actual deaths and case numbers fell far below predictions other than in certain limited areas, like Lombardy, the UK, and New York-New Jersey. We'll have yet to see analysis of what must have been particular factors that led to those exceptional outcomes. Nevertheless, influential politicians have cited various reasons for insisting that society can't fully reopen, and there is now to be a "new normal", with certain natural and constitutional rights indefinitely suspended.

The bottom line is that what had been understood as a temporary and voluntary suspension of natural and constitutional rights is now to be enforced indefinitely with quasi-legal "emergency" authority , including arrests and confinement. For instance, Illinois Gov "JB" Pritzger said yesterday on CNN:

“The truth is coronavirus is still out there. It hasn’t gone anywhere,” Mr. Pritzker said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “So we all are going to have to change the way we do things until we’re able to eradicate it.”

Even the mainstream-media Chicago Tribune objected.

In a staff editorial, the Chicago Tribune called his plan “cautious in the extreme,” noting that it bans reopening schools, barbershops, salons, gyms, bars and restaurants—and then with capacity restrictions — only after the advent of a vaccine, herd immunity, or an “effectively and widely available treatment.”

“Actually, he’s being more than just cautious. He has moved the goal posts,” said the editorial. “Pritzker’s latest plan extends the benchmarks for victory from bending the infection curve to defeating the virus altogether.”

Law enforcement and local authorities are beginning to resist any requirement to enforce with arrests and confinement what had been voluntary suspension of otherwise constitutional rights. For instance, New York police arrested nine citizens for a peaceful demonstration at City Hall on May 9 on the orders of the mayor, citing a "non essential gathering" in bullhorn orders to disperse.

The head of the New York police union is cautioning officials against using NYPD to enforce voluntary "social distancing':

The union representing New York City’s police officers warned that the city will “fall apart” if the police force is used to enforce social distancing measures.

“This situation is untenable: the NYPD needs to get cops out of the social distancing enforcement business altogether,” Patrick Lynch, the president of the Police Benevolent Association of the City of New York, said in a statement, referring to the New York Police Department.

. . . Lynch accused the city’s leadership of providing the police force only “vague” guidelines on how to enforce the measures and said criticism of the NYPD’s involvement in making sure people separate from one another was inevitable.

On the other hand, on a TV show last night, I watched the Baltimore police chief explain that police needed to enforce "social distancing" measures including frequent hand washing. How is hand washing the chief's business?

It's becoming plainer that local authorities across the US are beginning to push back against extended "social distancing" orders, especially when law enforcement is called upon to make arrests for otherwise completely legal and constitutionally protected activity.

In Pennsylvania, county commissioners and district attorneys are moving to nullify Gov Wolf's executive orders:

Republican commissioner majorities in Berks, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lebanon and Schuylkill counties have all made public moves in that direction in recent days.

Their argument comes down to this: They’ve seen their residents respond, sometimes at tremendous personal cost, to Wolf’s initial emergency lockdown and its stated goals of buying time against the virus so that the state’s hospitals aren’t overwhelmed with COVID-19 cases. And, as of mid-May, the commissioners say, they feel they’ve won.

Now, it’s time to reward those residents for their patience by starting to let them resume their lives and livelihoods.

Beyond that,

Dauphin County District Attorney Fran Chardo said on Saturday business owners who open their establishments while the county remains in the red phase of Gov. Tom Wolf’s reopening plan [deserve] a fair legal vetting before being cited.

"People are being smart, wearing masks, and maintaining social distance,” Chardo said. “Using criminal sanctions would not be helpful. The criminal law is a blunt instrument and is not ordinarily used for enforcement of a Governor’s decree.”

. . . Chardo joins District Attorneys David Sunday, of York County, and Pier Hess Graf, of Lebanon County, in saying they think it’s in poor judgment to cite business owners, who have been closed for nearly seven weeks throughout the coronavirus pandemic, without a proper review.

County sheriffs in many parts of the country have formally announced they will not enforce "social distancing" orders, including Mohave and Pinal Counties in Arizona; Snohomish County in Washington; Cumberland and Perry Counties in Pennsylvania; and Riverside County in California.

Neighboring San Bernardino County in California joined Riverside in unilaterally lifting certain state "safe distancing" orders, including the requirement to wear masks, while Yuba, Sutter, and Modoc counties are also opening early. Napa County is apparently doing this less formally, but businesses are also reopening there without arrests.

As far as I can tell, these examples aren't exhaustive, and they're taking place in states where "blue" governors have maintained restrictions in attempts to impose a "new normal"

However, pushback by local governments and law enforcement is just one factor in more general rejection of a "new normal". I'll cover these in additional posts.