Two months into the coronavirus pandemic and his statewide lockdown, Gov. J.B. Pritzker stands on ice that grows steadily thinner, though it’s not nearly as thin as his patience when his judgment is challenged.

Coping with disgruntled constituents taking to the courts, sheriffs and state’s attorneys across the state refusing to carry out lockdown orders and general tumult about his recently abandoned one-size-fits-all approach, Pritzker alternates between the carrot and stick approach to encouraging compliance.

In one moment, he displays empathy for a public fearful of the virus, tired of the lockdown and concerned about economic devastation it has fostered.

“Folks, I know this is hard. I know that people are hurting,” he said. “This virus has taken many lives, and destroyed many livelihoods. COVID-19 has turned our world upside down, stolen our sense of normalcy and stability. I want this to end just as much as you do. If I could take away the pain and the loss that you’re feeling right now, I would do it in a heartbeat.”

In another, Pritzker resorts to scare tactics suggesting an end-of-earth apocalypse.

“Without a smart, well-thought-out plan to reopen, there might not be anything left to reopen,” he said.

Then there’s the name-calling and motive-challenging. He characterizes his critics as “ideologues” and “partisans” who engage in “grand-standing tactics” while maintaining that, in sharp contrast, his decisions are guided by “science.”

Finally, there are outright threats, most prominently Pritzker’s warning that he might deny federal stimulus funds to areas of the state that disobey him.

“We would consider that. The state already provides a lot of support for cities and counties, and so I would just suggest that there are a number of enforcement mechanisms that are available to us,” he said.

It’s not easy to be the governor in the middle of a pandemic that raises more questions than answers, and Pritzker is showing the strain.

Just this week, nearly 73,000 more state residents applied for unemployment assistance. That’s on top of the 1 million Illinoisans who have lost their jobs, mostly the consequence of the pandemic and lockdown. The U.S. has gone from record-low unemployment to near record-high unemployment in two months, reducing the economy from a juggernaut to predictions of an impending depression.

So far, Pritzker is the sole decision-maker in terms of pandemic policy, although he has made it a point to solicit opinions widely on what he should do next.

But there are serious disputes about that, too. Is Pritzker, at least with respect to this public-health emergency, a one-man band in making public policy?

Just this week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that its governor does not have open-ended authority to act as he sees fit during a public-health emergency.

It found he must work out a plan with legislators because Wisconsin law does not authorize open-ended one-man emergency rule.

Dissenters in Illinois have made the same argument, citing state law that limits the governor’s declaration of emergency powers to 30 days. But a federal judge in Chicago — John Lee — found that the governor has authority to declare one 30-day emergency after another.

In ruling as he did, Lee noted the statutorily imposed 30-day limit on emergency declarations but ignored it.

He said emergency events “may persist for long periods of time” and that it is “difficult to see why the Legislature would recognize these long-running problems as disasters, yet divest the governor of the tools he needs to address them.”

This week, a Cook County judge — Celia Gamrath — reached a similar conclusion. She found the 30-day limit applies only to “discrete” events.” Because the pandemic is a “dynamic” event, she said, the governor can “utilize emergency powers” for an open-ended period of time.

But those who argue the governor’s powers are not unlimited also have credible arguments to make.

A couple weeks ago, the state appellate prosecutor’s office issued an advisory opinion to local state’s attorneys that concluded the statutory 30-day emergency-declaration limit applies to the pandemic and warned that Pritzker’s lockdown, depending on how it is enforced, potentially violates a host of individual civil rights, including freedom of religion.

At the same time, it was revealed that the attorney general’s office, which now insists Pritzker has unlimited power, issued an advisory opinion in 2001 that concluded that the governor has autocratic authority for 30 days, per the statute, but “is required to seek legislative approval for the exercise of extraordinary measures extending beyond 30 days.”

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, one of Pritzker’s Democratic colleagues, not only ignored his own department’s advisory opinion, but also asked the Illinois Supreme Court to rule that Pritzker’s emergency authority is unlimited. The court declined to intervene because the Henry County dispute Raoul sought to use as a vehicle to get to the high court did not present a “case or controversy” for the court to address. Further, the high court, as a matter of policy, does not make advisory rulings.

Of course, Pritzker could use this week’s scheduled meeting of the General Assembly to ask for legislative support that would end the legal debate about the lockdown. Reports out of Springfield, however, indicate that majority Democrats, nervous about public anger over the lockdown, want to avoid the issue.

If so, that will leave Pritzker right where he is now — presiding over an unhappy state racked by a pandemic, economic calamity and widespread discord over Pritzker’s five-phase, four-region restoration plan that requires either a cure or a vaccine before life can return to normal.