Neil Gorsuch Murders Andrew Cuomo, and Twitter Murders Justice John Roberts

Last night, it was announced that the Supreme Court had put the kibosh on Andrew Cuomo’s clearly unconstitutional COVID regulations. For months now, New York has selectively enforced bans on gatherings, targeting religious institutions while allowing mass protests to occur in the street. Even someone with a passing understanding of the law could ascertain that such was clearly discriminatory and illegal.

And while Amy Coney Barrett garnered the headlines for the 5-4 decision, it was Neil Gorsuch who actually did the rhetorical and legal beheading.

Gorsuch lays into Cuomo’s arbitrary enforcement of COVID guidelines, noting how they specifically target religious institutions. The snark is turned way up here and New York’s shameless governor deserves every single bit of it, though he’s hardly alone among the nation’s Democrat politicians. We’ve seen since the beginning of the pandemic an arbitrary targeting of churches and synagogues in places like Michigan, New Jersey, and New York.

In some ways, it’s actually sad that it took this long for such a ruling to get handed down, though it must be noted that Barrett being on the court made the difference here. In other words, it was best that the decision was put off until she was seated.

Meanwhile, the biggest loser may not actually be Cuomo. It may be John Roberts, who sided with the liberals (as if he’s not just a liberal at this point) in an attempt to nullify the First Amendment, that came out looking the worst here.

Has there been a more disappointing appointment to the Supreme Court by a Republican than John Roberts? At least in the modern era? This is a guy once held up as a stalwart conservative jurist. Now, he can’t even agree the First Amendment still applies during a government proclaimed crisis.

This should have been an open and shut decision that ended 9-0. Instead, it was a razor-thin 5-4 margin because Roberts can’t even be counted on to protect the most basic of rights. While I love seeing Cuomo and Roberts get smacked here, it’s a little disconcerting that it even had to get this far.

One day, voters in these liberal states are going to have to wake up and start voting for their interests instead of what makes them feel the most virtuous. Regardless, Barrett’s appointment to the Supreme Court has put another wall up between the people and tyranny. Let’s hope it holds.

Justice Gorsuch finally puts words to the thoughts of many.

Thanks. But why not provide some of the rebuke of Gorsuch:

New York’s Governor has asserted the power to assign different color codes to different parts of the State and govern each by ex- ecutive decree. In “red zones,” houses of worship are all but closed—limited to a maximum of 10 people. In the Ortho- dox Jewish community that limit might operate to exclude all women, considering 10 men are necessary to establish a minyan , or a quorum. In “orange zones,” it’s not much dif- ferent. Churches and synagogues are limited to a maxi- mum of 25 people. These restrictions apply even to the larg- est cathedrals and synagogues, which ordinarily hold hundreds. And the restrictions apply no matter the precau- tions taken, including social distancing, wearing masks, leaving doors and windows open , forgoing singing, and dis- infecting spaces between services.

At the same time, the Governor has chosen to impose no capacity restrictions on certain businesses he considers “es- sential.” And it turns out the businesses the Governor con- siders essential include hardw are stores, acupuncturists, and liquor stores. Bicycle repair shops, certain signage companies, accountants, lawyers, and insurance agents are all essential too. So, at least according to the Governor, it may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians. Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience?

As almost everyone on the Court today recognizes, squar- ing the Governor’s edicts with our traditional First Amend- ment rules is no easy task. People may gather inside for extended periods in bus stations and airports, in laundro- mats 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, espe- cially when religious institutions have made plain that they stand ready, able, and willing to follow all the safety pre - cautions required of “essential” businesses and perhaps more besides.

The only explanation for treating religious places differently seems to be a judgment that what hap- pens there just isn’t as “essential” as what happens in sec- ular 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.

Nor is the problem an isolated one. In recent months, certain other Governors have issued similar edicts. At the flick of a pen, they have asserted the right to privilege res- taurants, marijuana dispensaries, and casinos over churches, mosques, and temples. See Calvary Chapel Day-ton Valley v. Sisolak , 591 U. S https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.