Image 01 Image 03

SCOTUS: Roberts Joins Liberals To Reject Injunction in California Religious Discrimination Lockdown

SCOTUS: Roberts Joins Liberals To Reject Injunction in California Religious Discrimination Lockdown

It’s open season on religious groups. Dissent: “absent a compelling justification (which the State has not offered), the State may not take a looser approach with, say, supermarkets, restaurants, factories, and offices while imposing stricter requirements on places of worship.”

The Supreme Court has handed petty tyrants throughout the land license to discriminate against religious groups in ordering pandemic lockdowns and restrictions. From this point forward an argument that had succeeded in many lower courts will hold no sway.

That argument ran something like this: Religious groups should not be subjected to more harsh treatment than similarly situated secular groups. So you can’t ban drive-up church services if you don’t ban drive-up secular services such as fast food restaurants and liquor stores. If a religious group practiced the same ‘social distancing’ and other safety practices as others, then the First Amendment prevented states and cities from treating religious groups differently.

The Supreme Court issued an Order just before midnight last night in a California case seeking an emergency injunction. We discussed the California case and an Illinois case in  Religious Liberty Lockdown Cases Reach SCOTUS.

The Illinois case was resolved when the state allowed the additional restrictions on churches to lapse, SCOTUS Denies Emergency Injunction After Illinois Agrees “Religious Gatherings will no Longer be Subject to Mandatory Restrictions”.

In the California case, the Court denied an injunction in an Order without opinion, with the four conservative justices (Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh) stating they would have granted the injunction. Chief Justice Roberts was part of the majority rejecting the injunction, and wrote a concurring opinion explaining his reasoning. The short version is that this is a pandemic and the courts shouldn’t second-guess politicians:

Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time. And the Order exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods.

The precise question of when restrictions on particular social activities should be lifted during the pandemic is a dynamic and fact-intensive matter subject to reasonable disagreement. Our Constitution principally entrusts “[t]he safety and the health of the people” to the politically accountable officials of the States “to guard and protect.” Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 38 (1905). When those officials “undertake[ ] to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,” their latitude “must be especially broad.” Marshall v. United States, 414 U. S. 417, 427 (1974). Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an “unelected federal judiciary,” which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people. See Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528, 545 (1985).

The dissent took issue with the notion that religious groups were being treated equally, and made the point that all other factors were equal (saftey practices) and the only variable was religion. Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, wrote a Dissent which provided in part:

I would grant the Church’s requested temporary injunction because California’s latest safety guidelines discriminate against places of worship and in favor of comparable secular businesses. Such discrimination violates the First Amendment.

In response to the COVID–19 health crisis, California has now limited attendance at religious worship services to 25% of building capacity or 100 attendees, whichever is lower. The basic constitutional problem is that comparable secular businesses are not subject to a 25% occupancy cap, including factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries. South Bay United Pentecostal Church has applied for temporary injunctive relief from California’s 25% occupancy cap on religious worship services. Importantly, the Church is willing to abide by the State’s rules that apply to comparable secular businesses, including the rules regarding social distancing and hygiene. But the Church objects to a 25% occupancy cap that is imposed on religious worship services but not imposed on those comparable secular businesses….

The Church and its congregants simply want to be treated equally to comparable secular businesses. California already trusts its residents and any number of businesses to adhere to proper social distancing and hygiene practices….

… the State could impose reasonable occupancy caps across the board. But absent a compelling justification (which the State has not offered), the State may not take a looser approach with, say, supermarkets, restaurants, factories, and offices while imposing stricter requirements on places of worship. The State also has substantial room to draw lines, especially in an emergency. But as relevant here, the Constitution imposes one key restriction on that line-drawing: The State may not discriminate against religion.

(Justice Alito would have granted the injunction, but does not appear to have joined in the dissenting opinion.)

It’s open season on religious groups now. That’s not an understatement. While there is no majority written opinion, Roberts’ concurring opinion shows that religious discrimination simply needs to be cloaked in public health packaging to survive. The Supreme Court will not get involved.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


This is unbelievable.
It’s the court’s freaking job to second guess politicians if they violate the Constitution.
How else are we protected from tyranny?

    Tel in reply to Exiliado. | May 30, 2020 at 9:15 am

    Dead girl or live boy.

    “This is unbelievable…”

    Better LEARN to believe it. Swamp rats like roberts infest our government and the GOP.

    Better learn how to do something about it before your way of life – and everything you ever worked for – is gone, and the only people at the party will be soros, bezos and the like. You can be sure you won’t be invited – especially not when you’re in a FEMA camp, or detained by a democrat “flu monitor” who knocked at your door.


    Mark in reply to Exiliado. | May 30, 2020 at 8:37 pm

    Unbelievable in more ways than one. Roberts “reasoning” boils down to this:

    1) suspending the Bill of Rights protections really don’t require strict scrutiny by the courts because there is an invisible Constitutional clause that the BofR protections don’t exist in “dynamic and fact-intensive” situations or

    2) if they do apply then another invisible clause says the state government duty to provide “safety and health to guard and protect ” trumps judicial duty to protect the fundamental rights contained in the Bill of Rights… as long as it’s broad suspension of rights kinda, sorta, is not too broad or unjust.

    This has to be, even for Roberts, the most lazy, arrogant, and indifferently dumb opinion he has written while on the court.

    ANY executive, in any democratic OR totalitarian country could invoke a “duty” to protect the state or society to suspend human rights…as a principle it is WORTHLESS for anyone who takes their court job seriously.

    Roberts was another stealth blunder by the GOP (Bush) and continues to underscore it.

    “the safety and health” to an elected official,

    . Our Constitution principally entrusts “[t]he safety and the health of the people” to the politically accountable officials of the States “to guard and protect.” Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 38 (1905). When those officials “undertake[ ] to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,” their latitude “must be especially broad.” Marshall v. United States, 414 U. S. 417, 427 (1974). Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an “unelected federal judiciary,” which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people. See Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528, 545 (1985).

      Mark in reply to Mark. | May 30, 2020 at 8:43 pm

      Sorry, I left a portion of the original L.I. article as the bottom. Can’t figure out how to delete after posting. Please ignore or maybe an administrator can remove it?

      nacnud62 in reply to Mark. | May 31, 2020 at 3:54 am

      Roberts cites Jacobsen v Massachusetts (1905) as precedent justifying deferring to government authorities. Jacobsen was decided when the only vaccine available was for smallpox and Mr Jacobsen refused it on religious grounds. Interestingly, the Massachusetts law did not provide for forced vaccination, only a $5 fine (based on gold prices, likely $300 today) for refusal.

      This awful decision derserves its place in infamy with Dred Scott, Plessey v Ferguson, US v Miller, Wickard v Filburn, Roe v Wade, Kelo v New London, NFIB v Sebelius, and Obergfell.

It’s open season on religious groups.

Does that include the groups who attend mosques?

Or will some religious groups be exempt from the hunting?

    Of course not. It is, after all, the swamp/left/islamic axis we are in a civil war with.

    If they prevail, they’ll kill us. Then they’ll start killing each other, until things are settled.

    Shades of the Weimar Republic.

As someone who is mostly ignorant of legal matters, I can see the point of the majority opinion as described by CJ Roberts.

If religious services are similar to other gatherings where people are seated for a significant time in a building, such as a concert, they have to be treated the same. Sitting in a church service for (typically) an hour, maybe more, isn’t the same as moving around in a supermarket or a factory, or being seated in a barber’s chair for ten minutes or less.

I do >> not << like it, but I can understand it. {teeth gritted}

    hrhdhd in reply to DSHornet. | May 30, 2020 at 8:53 am

    But they have agreed to follow social distancing. What’s the difference between sitting six feet apart for an hour-long dinner and an hour-long church service? ?

    rightway in reply to DSHornet. | May 30, 2020 at 11:27 am

    The difference is simple. Freedom of religion is a constitutionally enumerated right, concert going is not.

      DSHornet in reply to rightway. | May 30, 2020 at 1:14 pm

      You’re entirely correct, but the issue is similarity with the crowds and how they’re handled – and that was in the decision he wrote.

      As I clearly said, I don’t like this either, but he was equally clear in what he said. He’s comparing apples to apples. Many of us aren’t.

        kyrrat in reply to DSHornet. | May 30, 2020 at 1:35 pm

        Concerts are not constitutionally protected. The freedom to practice religion is. We are not free to practice it if the arguably hostile to religion politicians (in California and elsewhere) are allowed to specify HOW we are allowed to practice our religion (i.e. only via live streams). What this IS comparable to is China, where the only allowable religion is the single state supported one, all others are suppressed. In our case, our state supported one, in California at least, is no religion.

      gospace in reply to rightway. | May 30, 2020 at 1:57 pm

      or the right of the people peaceably to assemble includes concerts. As long as they’re peaceful.

        rocky71 in reply to gospace. | May 30, 2020 at 3:11 pm

        Actually the assembly was inclusive of, tho not exclusive to, seeking redress of grievances- which would also be applicable in this circumstance as Gov’t.s have seen fit to dictate HOW some may worship in a specific manner as opposed to other types of assembly that are not specifically restricted from Govt to regulate.

        “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

        To forbid congregations from gathering ‘in fellowship’- a common part of worship for many Christian denominations- would most certainly be a prohibition of “free exercise” in a plain reading. Not to mention it also prevents members of those congregations from group discussion of said grievances adjacent to worship, which is the most common time, unfortunately, for such discussions due to the complexities of schedules in modern America.

          DSHornet in reply to rocky71. | May 30, 2020 at 4:37 pm

          Agreed, but how to square the freedoms of assembly and worship with equal protection under the law?

          It appears the plaintiffs said, “You need to let us do in church what you’re letting us do at pot stores, hardware stores, factory jobs, etc., etc.” They knew there was an outside chance of getting their freedom of worshipful assembly granted if they approached the issue that way. If they compared assembly to worship to assembly to enjoy a concert their petition would have failed outright because gatherings for concerts and such were screwed down tight. So they said worship services were the same as a trip to grocery shop and Roberts said, “No, it’s not the same. The nature of a worship service is not the same as the nature of a trip to Walmart for vittles.”

          Look – I’m active in my church now just as I’ve been active in my churches since my childhood in the 50s. This bothers me greatly since this is a horribly correct ruling that I hate as much as anybody else here.

    The problem is that “concerts” are not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, unlike religions which is in the FIRST Amendment. (First, being the most important. And notice that the SECOND Amendment is the right of citizens to keep guns, for the purpose of ensuring the First Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms has never been as important as it is today.)

    4fun in reply to DSHornet. | May 30, 2020 at 10:18 pm

    All the churches really need to do to comply is put some canned goods on the pews, have shopping carts for all and let the congregants just move between pews during services.
    That should satisfy any requirements.

    Michigan has gone commie, our 77 year old barber was told to shut down or face prison and a $7500 dollar fine for not complying with our bitch wHitler’s tyranny.
    I heard about the appeal court 2 – 1 ruling on my way to his shop to get a haircut. Best $60 I spent in a long time, and there is no price you just pay what you want.
    He has two female barbers working chairs also, I got the tall good looking blond. The other lady, a good looking brunette was busy with someone too.

No surprise here. Kennedy gave Roberts cover to pretend to be a conservative Justice.

    practicalconservative in reply to dystopia. | May 30, 2020 at 7:50 am

    Roberts often decides big issues on technical grounds. This tendency shows he lacks the fortitude necessary for the position of Chief Justice of the Untied States. The latest example was NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK, ET AL. 18-280 – the gun control case. Another example is HOLLINGSWORTH ET AL. v. PERRY ET AL. a gay rights case where Roberts ruled the Petitioners (those who proposed the California Proposition) did not have standing. His technical ruling opened the floodgates leading to Ogerfell v Hodges.

    I think Roberts should take senior status so a person of conviction can assume this important role.

      AFAIK there is no Senior Status for the SCOTUS. Chief and Associate Justices retire or die, no other option.

      It’s pretty damn obvious, at this point, that Roberts’ well-documented concern regarding the Court’s public image and its reputation inappropriately leaks into his jurisprudence, inasmuch as he seeks public approbation of the Court and is excessively hyper-attuned to which opinions may turn public opinion against the Court.

      This was most manifestly demonstrated during the Court’s Obamacare deliberations, in which Roberts switched his vote to uphold this unconstitutional abomination, despite furious appeals from Kennedy (to his credit, this time) to bring him back to the fold.

      The irony and hypocrisy of this jurisprudential attitude is that, in taking into account potential public animus towards the Court and potential negative public reaction to Court decisions, it represents the furthest thing from merely humbly “calling balls and strikes,” as Roberts famously described, during his confirmation hearings.

        If you don’t believe roberts is being extorted, you won’t believe boehner was being extorted.

        If you don’t believe either of these things, you are probably a looter on the street.

texansamurai | May 30, 2020 at 7:52 am

as a non-lawyer find this difficult to understand–this man is the chief justice of our highest court–how can he, and the others who join him, simply ignore one of the fundamental reasons for our country’s founding?–religious freedom/right to exercise is bedrock–shouldn’t he and the others who joined him be looking to prevent ANY infringement by government on religious freedom?–shouldn’t they be looking to the rights of the PEOPLE first rather than the interests of the ” government? ”

lord–simply despicable

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to texansamurai. | May 30, 2020 at 12:15 pm

    He’s demon possessed or Democrat possessed?

    Sometimes the most simple answer addresses the most complex question.

    Roberts’ actions are self-explanatory. He’s a rat. And for some reason, he has a lot to hide, exposing himself to rathood.

    This is why a deep background check – and maintaining your boundaries while in any office – is crucial. But for the GOP asshole (Jack Ryan, who was caught with his pants down, and caught pressuring his wife to have sex in public places), obama would never have been elected a senator, let alone a president.

    Roberts looks like the type of man who is kind of a horny putz, and weak sexuallyl around attractive women. Just like boehner. These men are easy to put in compromising situations.

    God knows what they left must have on boehner – I mean, explicit stuff. We’ll one day learn what they had on roberts. (Unless PDJT loses. If he does, truth – and us – are doomed.)

2smartforlibs | May 30, 2020 at 7:54 am

He’s exactly what Bush expected. Roberts sees himself as the all-important swing vote. OR in layman’s terms he has no moral fiber.

Demonstrated once again. Our suspicions towards Roberts are justified. When the Buzz vacates her seat Trump will have a chance to get a dependable 5th vote for originalism.

George bush was a liberal in conservative clothing.

legalizehazing | May 30, 2020 at 8:17 am

What a supreme irony. No laughs for all powerful politicians

Surely Roberts will burn in
Hell, sooner than later would be appropriate

    MarkS in reply to gonzotx. | May 30, 2020 at 8:36 am

    Speaking of burning, is the response to Floyd’s murder the only way to get justice?

      alaskabob in reply to MarkS. | May 30, 2020 at 9:50 am

      This is the same Minneapolis where an affirmative action cop capped an innocent WHITE woman. Justice took time riots. I’m for getting rid of police brutality but a lot of bad outcomes would cease if that portion of society would quit being so criminal. After trillions of dollars spent the USA has nothing to show for it. There are problems money can’t solve and only empowered.

This is what happens when we get judges who believe in an elastic interpretation of the Constitutio: we lose our freedoms

bobinreverse | May 30, 2020 at 8:43 am

Just waiting for Robby to side with Sully.

Just when Barack Obama was about to catch up, George W. Bush pulls away and remains alone at the top of the Worst President Ever list.

Trump has got to find a neutralizing factor and pressure this mutant off the court, you know, to spend more time with his family

Bet they would love having the little prick home all

mochajava76 | May 30, 2020 at 8:59 am

As a person of faith, as much as I disagree with this decision broadly, I can agree somewhat with it specifically to COVID.

Most Christian churches sing as a part of their worship service (hymns and/or praise songs). This is one part of the service where the congregation is actively involved and not passively listening.

The act of singing does magnify the dispersion of moisture in your breath and mouth to a greater range to those around you.

I do not know how pronounced singing as an activity of the congregants is in Jewish and Muslim services.

But my church has decided not to partially open for now because of this concern

    Exiliado in reply to mochajava76. | May 30, 2020 at 9:12 am

    If that’s your church’s decision, great for you.

    But the point here is that the government does not have the right to make that decision for you. The First Amendment clearly and explicitly forbids it.

    Or so we thought. Roberts just crushed the First Amendment.

    gonzotx in reply to mochajava76. | May 30, 2020 at 9:40 am

    Sorry, I meant to down vote you

    SophieA in reply to mochajava76. | May 30, 2020 at 11:02 am

    During a crisis, American citizens do not lose our rights. We temporarily chose to suspend some of these rights because St Fauci and the scarf assured us that 15 days to stop the spread so our hospitals would not be overtaxed until we could “flatten the curve.” Check out how many overflow Wuhan Flu patients were treated on either US hospital ships or the various hospitals that were built at the request of mayors to the tune of millions of our tax dollars. The curve flattened, then the goalpost moved to April 30 to “until we have a vaccine” or some such nonsense. Now we must petition a court to re-grant our freedom of religion right? Bollocks.

    Our rights come to us directly from God—not the state. When the emergency is over as it is, we do not need “permission” from any man-made institution. We are free adults who do not need a nanny in a scarf to tell us to wash our hands. Social distancing is a joke and an oxymoronic phrase.

    I’m old enough to remember the Aisisn fly in 1957 (116,000 US casualties w/o padding the numbers as is done today) and the
    Hong Kong flu (100,000 US casualties w/o padding the numbers etc) in 1968.

    Throughout both epidemics no one shut down our economy. The sick and vulnerable were cared for and protected but the healthy continued on with their lives. No one blamed the then sitting president —Eisenhower and Johnson. No church services ( I.e.1968 Christmas was not canceled as was 2020 Easter) or concerts or sporting events, etc. were canceled or limited in attendance. We adults took responsibility for ours own health.

    Besides perfect control over one’s security is an illusion.

    Furthermore, padding the numbers in certain large cities such as NYC just to get more of our tax dollars is despicable. Labeling traffic accident or gun shot victims as Wuhan Flu casualties is equally despicable. And sending flu patients to nursing homes is beyond evil. Forty -two percent of all US deaths account for nursing home citizens who are 1.8% of our nation’s total population. Evil.

    SCOTUS made a serious mistake with this decision. And we “know” that they always know best. Right?
    (See Dred Scott, Roe, Doe, etc)

      rocky71 in reply to SophieA. | May 30, 2020 at 12:30 pm

      Not to mention that 1968’s US population (per was over 1/3 lower and in 1957 HALF the size of our population today- making those numbers 50% greater and double, respectively, the touted percentages of today.

      BD1957 in reply to SophieA. | May 30, 2020 at 2:56 pm

      In a “crisis,” it is ESPECIALLY important that the Supremes NOT toss the Constitution in the trash can.

      Roberts doesn’t appreciate his responsibilities and obligations; it appears he cares too much about “what people will say about the Court and his stewardship of the same.”

Are Mosques and Synagogues so treated?

The good little sheep will social distance while being loaded into the cattle cars while the riot-looting mobs burn down the cities.

Do not wonder anymore why the 2nd Amendment is important.

And remeber which side your police are on.

we, as a populace, allowed them to become the final authority over any laws many decades ago.
time for a fresh start.

    gonzotx in reply to dmacleo. | May 30, 2020 at 10:18 am

    Absolutely agree. Our courts rule against us, the lobbyist make rules for our congress to rule against us, our state governments rule against us

    Throw all the bastards out. Time to rise up again and show them who is the power of the government really is

    But first, they the people will order a mucho light with carnal and a swirl of cinnamon… to go

      Edward in reply to gonzotx. | May 30, 2020 at 12:26 pm

      I’m not big on flavors in coffee, never have darkened the doorway of any of those places selling $5 cups of coffee (or is it more?). But I really would like to know where is that coffee shop which adds carnal with the coffee.

      Yeah, no edit complaint one more time. At least this typo is funny.

I am of the opinion that the five Justices who voted for this should be I’m peaches and removed from the bench for fundamental violation of their oaths of office. Allowing intentional religions discrimination of this sort flies in the face of the Constitution, regardless of what they might say from the bench.

This is a reprehensible ruling, and there will be consequences.

Roberts has a real talent for ducking issues he doesn’t personally care about. Was this not apparent in his pre-SCOTUS career?

Roberts wants to replace Warren in the history books. Roberts has taken the easy path to popularity with the DC elites. The Bill of Suggestions and a flexible constitution (lower case now) fulfill the transformation of the courts to ultimate controlling body. The prenumbra now overshadows everything.

This decision will stand only if the religious community agrees. With mobs of rioters, looters and arsonists roaming freely through our streets, we’re ‘still’ going to keep ourselves locked up?

The best we could have hoped for was a 5-4 vote in favor of the churches, but on very narrow technical grounds that avoided the Constitutional issues. Instead we got a 5-4 vote that was a sweeping attack on the Constitution. What Roberts and the Democrat Justices have said is that parts of the Bill of Rights can now be suspended for any reason if politicians simply say there is an “emergency”.

It is telling that the Supreme Court majority’s ruling put no limits on what constitutes an emergency, or for how long the emergency may last. It’s not quite martial law, mass incarcerations, and forced labor camps, but I think the Supreme Court has loudly signaled that it would not necessarily be opposed to such moves by a future Democrat president.

So McConnell rushes through all of those lower court appointments. Big deal. We now know that it doesn’t matter so long as SCOTUS won’t defend the Constitution. THAT is probably one of the reasons Pelosi and Schumer are not raising a fuss over the lower court appointments. Another is that although they may not be getting everything they are asking for (the sky e.g.), they are getting everything they want. We are losing and again, it’s the GOPe that is winning it for the Democrats.

Let’s see if the church related groups march on the supreme court in unison, all faiths from all over the country

Wonder what they got on him with there Hammer surveillance? Roberts is so far away from his roots or did that stroke really mess him up.

Perhaps law schools need to be reformed before we can ever hope for a change on federal benches. Jesus spoke of lawyers straining at gnats and swallowing camels, and it seems that things haven’t changed in two millennia.

texansamurai | May 30, 2020 at 12:01 pm

can SCOTUS decisions be appealed?–if not, then what is the recourse for the people?

roberts seems to have deliberately put himself in the position of arbiter of our constitutional rights

just unbeliveable

    Voyager in reply to texansamurai. | May 30, 2020 at 1:59 pm

    As far as I know, not until either a later court overturned this or a Constitutional ammendment is passed specifically over turning this, but given this court’s willingness to overlook the plain text, I don’t think the latter will be effective.

    That’s why I believe we need to impeach these justices for this ruling. Even if successful it will be long, it will be ugly, and it will make the Kavanah hearings look like a cub scout meeting, but it is also the sort of event that will reverberate with future Justices for a century to come.

    We cannot allow this to become acceptable, and impeachment is our last lawful recourse.

Anyone who disagrees roberts isn’t being extorted since obamacare: you’re naive to the point of being dangerous.
Between this ruling and Koramatsu (Japanese- American internment), the tools of fascism are in place by the left. Once again, we are one preise tial election away from tyranny.
How Antifa has been allowed to proliferate under the eyes of the DOJ is another scandal.

Roberts seems more an opportunist than a judge.

This should put to rest any notion that Bush was in anyway a conservative.

Roberts is a f’ing disaster and does not care what the constitution says. There are 5 judges that either cannot read or don’t care.

We know they can read.

This is an amazingly bad decision.

All SCOTUS needed to do is allow an injunction that requires the State to apply it’s emergency orders equally to secular and religious activity.

Instead, the court punted and wants to give deference to the state executive during an emergency.

The court and California will regret that.

1. All these emergency declarations are Federal as well.
2. The federal executive has power to take actions
3. PDJT is head of the federal executive branch
4. He can now cloak policy preferences in emergency situation
5. He gets the same deference. California wasn’t required to divulge the scientific evidence behind their orders. PDJT can’t be treated differently.

Good luck with this.

My suggestions for the administration:
1. Establish a quarantine on the California borders for outgoing traffic.
2. Ban air land and sea movement of people to California.
3. Revoke all categories of visa application in California.

Each of these measures is intended to reduce the health care burden on California. They can be allowed to expire simultaneously with the State of California reduction in it’s own assessment of the public health threat as evidenced by the State restoration of individual liberty.

    elle in reply to CommoChief. | May 30, 2020 at 1:20 pm

    I suppose we can hope that Roberts placed a poison pill in his ruling as he did with the Obamacare “tax”.

    It reminds me of the joke…. After the election, Hillary complained to the devil that they had a deal… . The devil said he HAD upheld his end of the bargain. – to assure that she got the most votes.

Imagine all the rulings we would have by now if She had been “elected”.

Trump, the Scooby-Doo President. He gets villains to voluntarily rip off their masks and show their true selves for all to see.

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:28 KJV)

ALL things.

Even this.

Is there anything that stirs individual faith more than adversity? A wake up call for the sleeping, a cry to stop sitting on the fence? An opportunity to declare who it is you want to rule your life?

Is it “we have no king but Caesar (Gov’t)” – or “the Messiah”? Seems like the Creator has asked that question of us before by presenting us with a loathsome situation that forced us to choose.

I hate the SCOTUS decision, but at the same time remember the words of Jesus:

“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! (Luke 11:49)

New here as poster; long time reader. Question: is it possible that the blog owner can move the up and down vote indicator away from the reply tab???

The reply tab is millimeters away from the no vote and for older eyes they are practically on top of each other. Missed ticking the tab for reply and it appeared as a no vote, and tried to correct it, but once ticked, it is in stone. This a real question, not intended as harassment.

    elle in reply to Candid. | May 30, 2020 at 3:09 pm

    Lol, I hear you :-). If I am on my phone I always use two figures to enlarge my screen before clicking reply and that puts just enough space between the two.

    rocky71 in reply to Candid. | May 30, 2020 at 3:21 pm

    HEAR, HEAR! & perhaps separate the Up & Down votes a scosch too.

Roberts has been a real disappointment ever since his appointment–he seems more worried about how all of this looks rather than providing real legal analysis–he’s no friend of the Constitution.

Whatever happened to the Bill of Rights???

Heaven forbid that, even though mentioning them, he should give any consideration to the application of guidelines relating to “lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances” as being discriminatory in relation to his “grocery stores, banks, and laundromats”. Not to overrule the State on these, but to take judicial notice that the State’s guidelines themselves would not pass judicial scrutiny.

And then grant the injunction.

    DSHornet in reply to ss396. | May 30, 2020 at 4:50 pm

    I also wish he had done it that way. Then maybe there wouldn’t have been a question of the 1st and 14th Amendments.

Remember that time when the laws of man successfully told God what to do?

Me neither.

Go pound sand.

Does everyone remember that john roberts had a SEIZURE in 2007, where he was rendered completely unconscious? And had a prior seizure in 1993?

He is likely on antiseizure medication, which can change you significantly: some drugs produce changes in emotions, memory or behavior, or affect learning.

No one’s thought of this yet, have they.