Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Huge Religious Liberty Win At SCOTUS Rejecting NY Lockdowns – What a difference a Barrett makes

Huge Religious Liberty Win At SCOTUS Rejecting NY Lockdowns – What a difference a Barrett makes

5-4 decision: “the regulations cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DWt7rnDNDE

Late last night, after I had gone to sleep, two things happened to ensure that I would not be able to take this morning off. First, Sidney Powell released her “Kraken” (more on that later), and second, the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision handed down a huge religious liberty win against Andrew “Killer” Cuomo’s lockdown restrictions on religious groups.

Remember, last May, when the Supreme Court rejected a request for relief involving California lockdown rules that singled out religious groups for more harsh treatment. We covered it, SCOTUS: Roberts Joins Liberals To Reject Injunction in California Religious Discrimination Lockdown:

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….

The same thing happened again in July, SCOTUS: Roberts joins liberals again to deny religious protection from discriminatory coronavirus lockdown:

Last night, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts joined the four liberal justices to deny injunctive relief to a church in Nevada which claimed that lockdown rules discriminated against religious groups, allowing much more lenient reopening for secular businesses such as casinos.

Then two things changed: Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, and Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed to fill the vacancy. We all wondered whether this would remove Roberts as the swing vote. On religious liberty cases, it appears so.

The Supreme Court Order addressed restrictions imposed by Cuomo that more harshly targeted the orthodox Jewish community, a frequent target of Cuomo and NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio.

The Order was “per curiam,” meaning no single author, but from the dissenting opinions we can see the 5-4 split.

Here’s the top line verdict granting injunctive relief pending appeal:

The application for injunctive relief presented to JUSTICE BREYER and by him referred to the Court is granted. Respondent is enjoined from enforcing Executive Order 202.68’s 10- and 25-person occupancy limits on applicant pending disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this order shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.

Here’s some detail on the restrictions, and comments from Cuomo that contributed to the result, from the majority opinion:

This emergency application and another, Agudath Israel of America, et al. v. Cuomo, No. 20A90, present the same issue, and this opinion addresses both cases. Both applications seek relief from an Executive Order issued by the Governor of New York that imposes very severe restrictions on attendance at religious services in areas classified as “red” or “orange” zones. In red zones, no more than 10 persons may attend each religious service, and in orange zones, attendance is capped at 25. The two applications, one filed by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and the other by Agudath Israel of America and affiliated entities, contend that these restrictions violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and they ask us to enjoin enforcement of the restrictions while they pursue appellate review. Citing a variety of remarks made by the Governor, Agudath Israel argues that the Governor specifically targeted the Orthodox Jewish community and gerrymandered the boundaries of red and orange zones to ensure that heavily Orthodox areas were included. Both the Diocese and Agudath Israel maintain that the regulations treat houses of worship much more harshly than comparable secular facilities. And they tell us without contradiction that they have complied with all public health guidance, have implemented additional precautionary measures, and have operated at 25% or 33% capacity for months without a single outbreak.

The majority found a clear First Amendment violation:

The applicants have clearly established their entitlement to relief pending appellate review. They have shown that their First Amendment claims are likely to prevail, that denying them relief would lead to irreparable injury, and that granting relief would not harm the public interest….

But even if we put those comments aside, the regulations cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.1

In a red zone, while a synagogue or church may not admit more than 10 persons, businesses categorized as “essential” may admit as many people as they wish. And the list of “essential” businesses includes things such as acupuncture facilities, camp grounds, garages, as well as many whose services are not limited to those that can be regarded as essential, such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and microelectronics and all transportation facilities. See New York State, Empire State Development, Guidance for Determining Whether a Business Enterprise is Subject to a Workforce Reduction Under Recent Executive Orders, https://esd.ny.gov/guidance-executive-order-2026. The disparate treatment is even more striking in an orange zone. While attendance at houses of worship is limited to 25 persons, even non-essential businesses may decide for themselves how many persons to admit.

These categorizations lead to troubling results. At the hearing in the District Court, a health department official testified about a large store in Brooklyn that could “literally have hundreds of people shopping there on any given day.” App. to Application in No. 20A87, Exh. D, p. 83. Yet a nearby church or synagogue would be prohibited from allowing more than 10 or 25 people inside for a worship service. And the Governor has stated that factories and schools have contributed to the spread of COVID–19, id., Exh. H, at 3; App. to Application in No. 20A90, pp. 98, 100, but they are treated less harshly than the Diocese’s churches and Agudath Israel’s synagogues, which have admirable safety records.

The majority tried to distinguish these restriction as more harsh than in the prior cases:

Stemming the spread of COVID–19 is unquestionably a compelling interest, but it is hard to see how the challenged regulations can be regarded as “narrowly tailored.” They are far more restrictive than any COVID–related regulations that have previously come before the Court,2 much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard-hit by the pandemic, and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus at the applicants’ services.

The majority also rejected claims that the case was moot because Cuomo had modified the restrictions:

Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area. But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten. The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty. Before allowing this to occur, we have a duty to conduct a serious examination of the need for such a drastic measure.

The dissenting opinions argue that we should withhold relief because the relevant circumstances have now changed. After the applicants asked this Court for relief, the Governor reclassified the areas in question from orange to yellow, and this change means that the applicants may hold services at 50% of their maximum occupancy. The dissents would deny relief at this time but allow the Diocese and Agudath Israel to renew their requests if this recent reclassification is reversed.

There is no justification for that proposed course of action. It is clear that this matter is not moot…. And injunctive relief is still called for because the applicants remain under a constant threat that the area in question will be reclassified as red or orange….

While we could presumably act more swiftly in the future, there is no guarantee that we could provide relief before another weekend passes. The applicants have made the showing needed to obtain relief, and there is no reason why they should bear the risk of suffering further irreparable harm in the event of another reclassification. For these reasons, we hold that enforcement of the Governor’s severe restrictions on the applicants’ religious services must be enjoined.

Gorsuch wrote a separate concurring opinion:

As almost everyone on the Court today recognizes, squaring the Governor’s edicts with our traditional First Amendment rules is no easy task. People may gather inside for extended periods in bus stations and airports, in laundromats and banks, in hardware stores and liquor shops. No apparent reason exists why people may not gather, subject to identical restrictions, in churches or synagogues, especially when religious institutions have made plain that they stand ready, able, and willing to follow all the safety precautions required of “essential” businesses and perhaps more besides. The only explanation for treating religious places differently seems to be a judgment that what happens there just isn’t as “essential” as what happens in secular spaces. Indeed, the Governor is remarkably frank about this: In his judgment laundry and liquor, travel and tools, are all “essential” while traditional religious exercises are not. That is exactly the kind of discrimination the First Amendment forbids.

In what appears to be swipe at Roberts, Gorsuch rejected the notion that the Court needs to “stay out of the way” on government restrictions on religious liberty in time of pandemic:

Why have some mistaken this Court’s modest decision in Jacobson [v. Massachusetts] for a towering authority that overshadows the Constitution during a pandemic? In the end, I can only surmise that much of the answer lies in a particular judicial impulse to stay out of the way in times of crisis. But if that impulse may be understandable or even admirable in other circumstances, we may not shelter in place when the Constitution is under attack. Things never go well when we do….

It is easy enough to say it would be a small thing to require the parties to “refile their applications” later. Post, at 3 (opinion of BREYER, J.). But none of us are rabbis wondering whether future services will be disrupted as the High Holy Days were, or priests preparing for Christmas. Nor may we discount the burden on the faithful who have lived for months under New York’s unconstitutional regime unable to attend religious services. Whether this Court could decide a renewed application promptly is beside the point. The parties before us have already shown their entitlement to relief. Saying so now will establish clear legal rules and enable both sides to put their energy to productive use, rather than devoting it to endless emergency litigation. Saying so now will dispel, as well, misconceptions about the role of the Constitution in times of crisis, which have already been permitted to persist for too long. It is time—past time—to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques.

Kavanaugh also wrote a separate concurring opinion:

To be clear, the COVID–19 pandemic remains extraordinarily serious and deadly. And at least until vaccines are readily available, the situation may get worse in many parts of the United States. The Constitution “principally entrusts the safety and the health of the people to the politically accountable officials of the States.” South Bay, 590 U. S., at ___ (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in denial of application for injunctive relief ) (slip op., at 2) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Federal courts therefore must afford substantial deference to state and local authorities about how best to balance competing policy considerations during the pandemic. See ibid. But judicial deference in an emergency or a crisis does not mean wholesale judicial abdication, especially when important questions ofreligious discrimination, racial discrimination, free speech, or the like are raised.

Roberts wrote his own Dissent, arguing the case was moot:

I would not grant injunctive relief under the present circumstances. There is simply no need to do so. After the Diocese and Agudath Israel filed their applications, the Governor revised the designations of the affected areas. None of the houses of worship identified in the applications is now subject to any fixed numerical restrictions. At these locations, the applicants can hold services with up to 50% of capacity, which is at least as favorable as the relief they currently seek….

The Governor might reinstate the restrictions. But he also might not. And it is a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic. If the Governor does reinstate the numerical restrictions the applicants can return to this Court, and we could act quickly on their renewed applications. As things now stand, however, the applicants have not demonstrated their entitlement to “the extraordinary remedy of injunction.”

In what may be a sign of conflict to come now that Roberts is not the swing vote, Roberts also took offense to his majority colleagues veiled swipes:

To be clear, I do not regard my dissenting colleagues as “cutting the Constitution loose during a pandemic,” yielding to “a particular judicial impulse to stay out of the way in times of crisis,” or “shelter[ing] in place when the Constitution is under attack.” Ante, at 3, 5–6 (opinion of GORSUCH, J.). They simply view the matter differently after careful study and analysis reflecting their best efforts to fulfill their responsibility under the Constitution.

One solo concurrence today takes aim at my concurring opinion in South Bay. See ante, at 3–6 (opinion of GORSUCH, J.)…. It is not clear which part of this lone quotation today’s concurrence finds so discomfiting. The concurrence speculates that there is so much more to the sentence than meets the eye, invoking—among other interpretive tools—the new “first case cited” rule. But the actual proposition asserted should be uncontroversial, and the concurrence must reach beyond the words themselves to find the target it is looking for.

Breyer, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan, wrote a dissent. Sotomayor also wrote a separate dissent joined by Kagan.  Blah, Blah, Blah, go read them yourself.

What a difference having Barrett on the court makes. How good a decision it was to get the confirmation done before the election.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

It’s about time we had a justice of her caliber. I call her ACBMG

    Exiliado in reply to Dusty Pitts. | November 26, 2020 at 10:00 am

    There will be no real justice until all the tyrants and mini-dictators are punished for their transgressions.
    And we know that will not happen.

      Tom Servo in reply to Exiliado. | November 26, 2020 at 10:53 am

      Thank God RGB is dead! That is very high on my list of Thanks for the day. Without her death, Religious Liberty in this country would have died. They were dead set on establishing precedent that the Government could regulate religious liberty any way it felt like doing.

        JeromeF in reply to Tom Servo. | November 27, 2020 at 12:27 pm

        There are lots of leftists who make our world worse and maybe tNRBG was one but celebrating her death is disgusting and I object.

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Exiliado. | November 26, 2020 at 10:54 am

      Fyi

      BREAKING: KRAKEN RELEASED! Attorney Sidney Powell Files 104 Page BOMBSHELL COMPLAINT of Massive Fraud in Georgia Election – Update: Michigan too

      Twitter Now Showing “Unsafe Link” Warning Messages for Sidney Powell’s Website — Blocks Americans from Seeing MASSIVE Voter Fraud

      Gateway Pundit

Roberts is a waste of a Justice.

    TX-rifraph in reply to Whitewall. | November 26, 2020 at 9:23 am

    What was the sales pitch that brought Roberts into such deep water when he clearly cannot swim? Who were the people who backed him? I ask because they will keep coming back with their “recommendations.”

    G. de La Hoya in reply to Whitewall. | November 26, 2020 at 9:31 am

    I’m still wondering what the “Swamp” has on him 😉

    Observer in reply to Whitewall. | November 26, 2020 at 9:54 am

    He really is a disgrace. Just utter the magic words “public health emergency” and Roberts is willing to rubber-stamp any and all government restrictions of our constitutional rights, no matter how unreasonable or inconsistently applied, because “experts” say it must be done!

    Roberts needs to go get his binky and his teddy bear and retreat to some plastic bubble where he can feel “safe.” He is clearly not up to the task of safeguarding our constitutional rights from tyrants.

    Now that we know Roberts is thin-skinned, we know how to rattle him. We need more “veiled swipes” from the 5 constitutional patriots insinuating the disregard for constitutional law advocated by the dissenters led by the Chief Justice himself.

      Dusty Pitts in reply to Pasadena Phil. | November 26, 2020 at 11:57 am

      He’s following the elite, not the Court. We might as well write him off, or maybe resurrect a slogan from the 1950s when people were saying IMPEACH EARL WARREN.

        But his legacy can be emblazoned into every decision where he sides with the anti-constitutionalists. Make his life miserable. Being “cool” with the elites has a price. In his case, it could be a life sentence of being tortured by truth.

        jmccandles in reply to Dusty Pitts. | November 27, 2020 at 9:53 am

        He has proven his first duty is not to the Constitution as written, thankfully ACB has nuttered him to irrelevance.

      It’s going to be so much fun watching the 5 conservative justices make a mocker of him for the rest of his career.

    Massinsanity in reply to Whitewall. | November 26, 2020 at 11:14 am

    Another “gift” from the insufferable Bush family.

    objection in reply to Whitewall. | November 26, 2020 at 7:46 pm

    Roberts solo opinion was more of the same dereliction of duty he pulled in “NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK, ET AL.”. The man is content to let great Constitutional issues rest on procedural ponts.

    This time he stood alone. The three Democrat Justices, now on the losing side saw no need to join him. Gorsuch blistered Roberts in his opinion.

    Roberts is now Chief in name only. His own paralysis has cast him adrift.

    JeromeF in reply to Whitewall. | November 27, 2020 at 12:38 pm

    Roberts is rapidly devolving from a solid GOP appointment to a disaster on the scale of the 70’s GOP appointments of Blackmun and Stevens. Both soon voted as if Obama had appointed them.
    He follows the long tradition of disastrous appointments by Republicans: Earl Warren, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter.

Without even a whimper, Punkin’ Head Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) China, laid down rather than argue his case based upon “science”. 🙂
I guess the platinum spoon that he was born with in his mouth didn’t teach him how to stand and fight.

This morning I am giving thanks for living in a Republic, founded and governed by a Constitution.

To Liberty, I raise a toast.

Thank you, Dear Lord.

As a first take it appears, IMO, that the State of NY was attempting to play games and the minority was willing to allow it.

In essence, NY instituted unconstitutional measures, got called out, refused to back off until lawsuits made their way to SCOTUS. Then, fearful of an adverse ruling with the potential to set a lasting and more widespread precedent limiting the use of ‘but Rona’ as an excuse for governmental overreach, the State tried to ‘moot’ the case.

The majority clearly recognized this attempt and acted properly IMO, to stop it dead in it’s tracks. As for the by play between the Justices within the opinions; Roberts is clearly frustrated.

He has a more passive view of the role of SCOTUS, which would be fine if he had been Chief Justice in the late 1970s and 1980s. Unfortunately, the ship has sailed on the court being passive and not intervening unless absolutely required. Many of the precedents we have been left with were created by various coalitions of the court in order to ‘do something’.

Until most of these more interventionist precedents are overturned, Roberts is likely to remain frustrated as five members move to unravel the previous 3 generations of perhaps well intentioned but legally and constitutionally dubious precedent. At that point I think we could all more easily sympathize with Roberts inclination to have SCOTUS avoid large controversy.

    paracelsus in reply to CommoChief. | November 26, 2020 at 10:33 am

    @ CommoChief
    There comes a time in every man’s life when he must reach down between his legs and find out exactly what he made of.
    Roberts is not masturbating; I believe he’s still trying to find exactly where to look.

      Roberts has been compromised

        Dusty Pitts in reply to MarkS. | November 26, 2020 at 3:51 pm

        He was born compromised.

          CommoChief in reply to Dusty Pitts. | November 26, 2020 at 5:49 pm

          Paracelcus, MarkS, Dusty,

          My issue with Roberts is that he doesn’t want the court to be seen as ideological. He seeks some sort of ‘never was’ period of purity in which Jurists exercised their authority without regard to political beliefs or affiliation of themselves or those who appointed and confirmed them.

          I don’t think he’s a bad guy. He is simply too naive to be on the court. I believe he sincerely wants to remove partisan politics from the court. He wants a non ideological court. A court where the Justices review the case history, listen to arguments, reflect on precedent and apply the law and constitutional strictures to the case before them in a way which everyone will applaud as prudent, just, fair and concise.

          Unfortunately that world, if it ever existed, has been vanished for my lifetime; I was born in 1970. What little regard folks still had for the court was blown away with Roe. That case was decided in a manner which Roberts would have voted against at the time.

          I don’t think he truly understands how irreconcilable his philosophy is with his actions. He would vote to retain Roe tomorrow in order to refrain from appearing politically motivated, even if he thought the case was bad. That vote would of course, be just as politically motivated as the votes to overturn Roe.

          The world is not as he wishes it to be. Deep down I think he realizes this, but is fearful that if he admits it then his entire judicial philosophy, in terms of how he views the role of SCOTUS, would become untethered.

          Thankfully with the elevation of Justice Barrett, we have five voices for a more textual/original reading and application of our constitution.

          IMO we have not a 6/3 or 5/4 split but a 5/3/1 split, with Roberts on his own in many instances. He will have to decide which way to jump now that his previous votes in the minority on certain issues are likely to be reconsidered by a 5 vote majority.

    stablesort in reply to CommoChief. | November 26, 2020 at 11:38 am

    “The majority clearly recognized this attempt and acted properly IMO, to stop it dead in it’s tracks.”

    Exactly right; further, Roberts acts as the aristocrat he perceives himself to be when he says just bring the case again.

    You mean I don’t have to hire a $1000 law firm? I can just pick up the phone, give you a call and then you’ll do what you should have done now?

    Give me a break, Johnny.

This decision underscores the need for Senate Republicans to oppose the illegitimate Harris/Biden regime at every turn:

– no Cabinet appointments
– no Federal judicial appointments

As we have already seen the Communists have been voting in lockstep against any appointments by Trump. If this is the “new normal” the Communists and their supporters lust for, so be it.

Of course, the GOPe has already signaled it is onboard with whatever the Communist Party wants to do, so this will never come to pass.

“What a difference having Barrett on the court makes. How good a decision it was to get the confirmation done before the election.”

What a difference having an American, one who appreciates the uniqueness of the American form of government, as POTUS.

Conservative Beaner | November 26, 2020 at 10:16 am

This is just a warmup for things to come. If the senate gets two more dems and packs the court our Republic is dead.

The Friendly Grizzly | November 26, 2020 at 10:19 am

Barrett let’s Roberts be who he really is.

    She and the other judges in the majority forced Roberts to make phony embarrassing arguments. And then they called him out for making such false claims. unbelievably wonderful.

    Not since the Dred Scott case has a Chief Justice looked so bad in trying to justify evil.

God save us from a Harris appointment SCotUS

Here in CA, there were other positive developments. First, when Governor Hair Gel and Fake Doctor Barbara Ferrer issued tightening restrictions on restaurants, Pasadena’s city council voted to ignore them and second, the LA city council, despite approving the new restrictions, also admonished her for never citing any science in her reasoning and instructing her seek the advice from real doctors from here on and bring the science!.

The beginning of the end for the fake doctor. The politicians are feeling the heat and know they are quickly losing whatever credibility they ever had.

If anyone doubts that this is 100% politics, find the audio tape of the closing statements by the city council where one after the other, they pat themselves on the back for how they responded to the WuFlu citing mainly their success in imposing compliance. Not a single mention of science. It’s all about seizing power over citizens.

This is wonderful. I got a warm-fuzzy from reading it

But I believe someone promised us Kraken… 😮

Is it pre-sliced and breaded, or do we have to do that? How long do we fry it for? 🙂

Mmmmmm….. Kraken…….

There seems to be two threads running through the Supreme Court: those justices who believe there is nothing worth dying for and those justices who do.

And then there is Roberts is just out wandering in the desert…

Happy Thanksgiving to all. Thank’s to ACB for a small but heartwarming victory this am.

“…(bare) majority found a clear First Amendment violation:”

In a perfect world this should’ve been 9-0 decision. Instead, Chief Justice John Roberts is a disgrace, and put it in writing when he voted not to grant injunctive relief: “The Governor might reinstate the restrictions. But he also might not.”

That’s precisely WHY SCOTUS needed to opine they way it did to uphold the First Amendment, numbnuts; these politicos are UNHINGED from their Constitutional oath!

Gorsuch hit the bulls eye: “Indeed, (Gov. Cuomo(D-NY) is remarkably frank about this: In his judgment laundry and liquor, travel and tools, are all “essential” while traditional religious exercises are not. That is exactly the kind of discrimination the First Amendment forbids.”

The fact that 4 justices chose to ignore this egregious government discrimination targeted against specific minorities means they condone – and are willing to facilitate – the Stalinists and their flagrant assault against religious liberty.

Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan: RESIGN NOW!

Well, yes, “It’s a huge victory for religious freedom.” BUT this should never have squeaked by at 5-4.

The essential argument is that the same rules must be applied to religious observance as are being applied ot bike shops, liquor stores, etc. To get around this, the minority (by one vote!) insisted that religious observance was uniquely dangerous, and therefore the same rules could not be applied to it.

At a minimum, this is dishonest: of course the same rules (masks, six feet, etc.) can be applied to all. But at maximum, this is seems a reversal of precedent wherein religious and political speech mostly has received stronger protections than commercial speech.

One could argue that government should apply the exact same rules to religion as it applies to business, yet commercial advertising can be restricted or forbidden if it makes false claims, whereas government does not presume to judge which, if any, religious claims are or are not true.

Can citizens truly trust a “progressive” court not to do so?

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

The Best is Yet to Come.

With Roberts’s abdication to the left, Clarence Thomas has become the Acting Chief Justice.

This is a good thing.

Did you guys read Roberts’ pathetic response to Gorsuch in the opinion? He’s completely gone over to the Cuck Side.

Subotai Bahadur | November 26, 2020 at 3:45 pm

The next thing to look for is Leftist governors ignoring the ruling, and hoping that Biden steals the presidency.

Subotai Bahadur

didn’ the USSC, prior to RBG croaking, endorse NYS firearms transport laws as to NYC, saying that “well, Cuomo rendered the restriction moot by restructuring the law prior to the USSC decision, and, on the record, affirming that no NYC citizen transporting the weapon to an authorized facility for praciticing with it, if stopped by police/troopers, would be subject to prosecution, provided however that such stop was for temporary purposes only, e.g., shitting on the fucking pols in that god forsaken shit hole state.

So the gambit in NYS seems to be: “Oh this is gonna go to the newly configured USSC? Let’s hurry the fuck up and change the law in some micro-managed manner that gives to the Plaintiff some minor element of what Plaintiff seeks, and we’ll then render USSC “moot” because we’ve taken off the table the element critical to Plaintiff.

(any of you all here reading my post who are legal beagles and/or more knowledgeable than – not hard to be – please feel free to correct me).

    CommoChief in reply to Marcus. | November 26, 2020 at 6:36 pm

    Marcus,

    Your description is accurate enough. Hopefully, the SCOTUS will continue on this path of refusing to allow a party to moot an issue simply because the case is taken up by the court.

    It’s one thing for a government to truly moot an issue by changing the law at a point before cert is granted, it’s quite another thing to attempt to moot an issue BECAUSE cert was granted or applied for.

among several good things that will happen on the court now that barrett is voting is that the caliber of deliberation/decisions/statements will improve exponentially–she has the legal chops and intellect to raise the game of the justices around her and she’s not afraid to use them–in other words, she has the ability to make the lib justices look stupid/traitorous and expose them for the same

thank God she is on the Court–PDJT was exactly right for nominating her/assisting in her confirmation

What a disgrace politically-minded “jurist” Roberts, is, along with his Leftist brethren. This should have been a 9-0 decision.

Something is profoundly wrong with the Leftist Justices’ jurisprudence when core Constitutional liberties are barely being upheld, by one-vote margins.

Roberts is definitely not the worst of the bunch, certainly not nearly as bad as the left wing of the court, and I do not think that he himself is a leftist. Maybe he behaves this way out of a misguided sense that he has to provide balance and bring the squabbling members of the court together to join hands and sing kumbaya. Or perhaps, more likely, he’s just too timid, too conservative, too protective of the court itself (e.g. court packing threats). If he’s really worried about the reputation of the court, maybe it’s time for him to do some political outreach himself, perhaps attempt to educate the ignorant mobs that appear to hold so much sway in Democrat circles, that we have one of the greatest constitutional systems of government on earth, ever. But I will admit, he has not shaped up to be the bold keeper-of-the-flame that I think we all want and expect the members of the court to be.

the freedom of religion americans enjoy is not a right granted by the state. the first amendment only enumerates rights granted by the creator. the rights exist with or without the bill of rights.
that said to have one secular institution over rule another secular institution, is nothing to celebrate. either way the state is telling the people what they can or cannot do.
if the faith leaders had refused to close churches in the spring, we would be in a different place. unfortunately, they did not do this.
we are left with getting guidance from an arm of the state, telling people what’s allowed. when, or if, churches reopen will they be forced to comply with rules given by the state?
will the congregation even show up when the doors open?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend