So, a story on this is here, and the full opinions are here. There's been a long-running series of lawsuits coming out of NY (and probably other places too, I'm just more focused on NY cause I live there) over the fact that Cuomo decided to limit the number of people who could attend religious services due to the virus. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court shut down the rule yesterday.
But, the reason I'm posting this here is not so much the ruling itself (though I think its a huge win for freedom overall), but because of the rationales. I can't help but think that only one of them is actually caring about the law.
For the majority opinion, written by Gorsech, had the following opening and closing lines.
Government is not free to disregard the First Amendment in times of crisis.... 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
From Breyer's minority opinion
The Nation is now experiencing a second surge of infections....The nature of the epidemic, the spikes, the uncertainties, and the need for quick action, taken together, mean that the State has countervailing arguments based upon health, safety, and administrative considerations that must be balanced against the applicants’ First Amendment challenges.
I'm sorry, what? Since when does the Supreme Court rule on health arguments? The text is very clear, "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." It doesn't say "Congress shall make no law unless there's a virus which has a <2% fatality rate across the whole population." This is an attempt at an insane new level of judicial activism. This isn't twisting the law to fit, this is saying "well, the law is nice and all but doesn't matter here"
... a modified SARS Coronavirus from China?
Hearing that word more. It's almost like it's cold and flu season or something.
From most of the population not being sure if any or all of their gathering spots, schools, stores, and workplaces will be shuttered by government diktat before March.
Something must be done. This is something. Therefore we must do this. Maybe try some reasoned action for once?
Is a pile of horseshit and scaremongering.
Those arguments are only "equal" because the media (including social media) has been steadily and systematically purging any dissenting voices, even if they belong to a medical professional.
wat
I'm sorry, did that just end by saying that your first amendment rights are subject to the volume of government paperwork incurred by your speech?
John Roberts is a fucking disgrace.
As usual, the only thing the left-wing judges' arguments are good for is wiping the froth from their mouths.
These people - even the 'best' among them - are raving lunatics.
In fact, it's an insult to lunatics to call them that, because at least the moon is real. These Pinochet-bait pinkos have reached a level of disconnection with reality hitherto unheard-of and unseen.
David Icke is more grounded in reality than these retards.
Replace any of the four dissenting clowns with Alex Jones and we will have one more rational justice.
AJ is best SCOTUS. He would write a dissent/concurring opinion for every case, which I would eagerly await reading.
Jones/Icke 2024
They're turning the freaking lizard people gay!
That sentence made more sense than I expected...
An Alex Jones type figure ran for Washington State Supreme Court a couple years back. Sadly he didn't win, because we didn't deserve him. But I write him in for every judicial opening now because all our other choices are so shit.
The only way these people will be grounded in reality is if we dig up Augusto and the Chicago Boys... or if their parents see their browser history.
Roberts is a compromised Flip-Flopper and can't be relied upon for making the right choice in big cases like this.
Thankfully with ACB on the bench, we should be able to get more than a few solid important wins in the upcoming cases, especially those election cases.
He's no longer a Flip-Flopper. He's now part of the liberal wing of the Court. 6-3 means he can join the "right side of history" every time. His concern about his legacy and not having a "Dread Scott" like decision under his watch is going end up igniting another Civil War...
Dear Justice Roberts: if you vote with the liberals 90% of the time, you are a liberal.
Roberts was nominated by Bush. He's a RINO by definition.
Roberts should be classified as leftist since he always actually fucking votes with the leftist judges.
Let's hope that the five decent justices that voted in favor of the Constitution here will keep it up for the election fraud rulings.
Apparently Cuomo has since came out, and said that the ruling has no practical effect.
Heading towards contempt?
He's right on a technicality, as the specific organizations mentioned in the suit (a catholic church and a synagogue) both are in areas which are no longer under as restrictive a ruling (which is what Roberts said in his dissenting opinion). However, since this is now a matter of legal precedence this should prevent Cuomo and others from instituting those same rules again. Well, one can dream that's the case anyway.
Amy for the win! I love her already.