Posted on 11/25/2020 9:58:38 PM PST by Trump20162020
BREAKING: Supreme Court votes 5-4 to grant Catholic Diocese and orthodox Jews' request to block Gov. Cuomo's attendance limits at houses of worship in New York.
Chief Justice Roberts joins the three liberal justices in dissent.
I thought Roberts did not like these 5-4 decisions, lol.
Trending to become a full blown Souter.
If he is being blackmailed then perhaps DOJ should take matters into their own hands and look into the allegations. No need to worry about being blackmailed again ;-)
Trump should offer Roberts blanket immunity! S’plode heads all over. /s
At the same time, the Governor has chosen to impose no capacity restrictions on certain businesses he considers “essential.”
And it turns out the businesses the Governor considers essential include hardware 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 pickup 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?
“ Roberts is a compromised fag.”
Ditto.
Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience?
Ha ha ha. We need A LOT more of this Alinsky style ridicule.
Roberts is a progressive-corportist like the POTUS who nominated him. And a closeted fag, too.
I don’t think that’s what he was going on here. Roberts was trying to chart a middle course, denying relief on procedural grounds while expressing a shared “concern” with the conservatives on the constitutional issue. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh wrote concurrences essentially playing “good cop, bad cop” to pull Roberts to the conservative side.
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh each made it clear where they will stand when this case is finally heard. Both clearly view Cuomo’s order as unconstitutional. Gorsuch also spends some time savaging the liberals and ridiculing Roberts’ concurrence in an earlier church lockdown case, South Bay Pentecostal v Newsom. Gorsuch’s concurrence is pretty good reading for conservatives.
Kavanaugh is much more diplomatic toward Roberts, basically pointing out that Roberts agrees with the conservatives on the substance, but just disagrees on the “narrow procedural point” of whether injunctive relief is warranted here.
Roberts expresses “concern” about the constitutionality of Cuomo’s order, but asserts that this case doesn’t meet the “stringent” standard for the “extraordinary” remedy of a temporary injunction, because there are currently no restrictions—basically, he’s saying there is no reason to order Cuomo not to do something he is currently not doing. He then spends the rest of the concurrence defending himself from Gorsuch’s attack. In particular, Gorsuch ridiculed his reliance on the old vaccination case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, in the South Bay case. Roberts downplays it here, pointing out he only cited the case once in South Bay.
One point: I don’t think anyone really views Gorsuch or Kavanaugh as “swing votes” like Roberts and Kennedy were. They are just conservative judges, and as such they act like judges rather than legislators. That means they won’t always reach the outcome conservatives want because they are following what they view as the law. Scalia was the same way. Kennedy and Roberts, by contrast, are intellectually dishonest and clearly were tailoring their reasoning to reach liberal results when it suited them.
Well that too but I favor the noose
Roberts is today’s David Souter ... lied his way to get on the Court as a Constitutionalist, then turned his back on his country, his friends and his family. The man has no honor, dignity or integrity. None.
This is a very interesting case with very interesting opinions.
The most interesting opinion is Breyer’s dissent, in which he describes COVID as “in many cases fatal”.
I’m an infectious diseases specialist, I actively treat COVID and am treating it today. So - I believe it’s real, I believe it’s worse than influenza, and I believe people die from it. I also believe the States (not the Feds) have a general police power which allows them to create LAWS to protect the public health.
And, since I have been here since May 1998, I also agree with the decision and I am a bit surprised it was close.
I have a question, though, for the anti-restriction absolutists who are in the majority here:
Suppose Ebola, with a 70% mortality (and infection only via contact) instead could spread like COVID? Suppose Ebola rates could rise in days like COVID rates can do?
Would we then be arguing about this? Would the Court not have ruled 9-0 that restrictions on gatherings were permitted under the Constitution?
So really the whole thing (including the use of mail-in ballots to subvert the election) turns on Mr. Justice Breyer’s subjective use of “in many cases fatal” language, right?
Off topic, but this is why the Court will turn down all the election cases under the "political questions" doctrine.
I tend to agree. That or standing. The Third Circuit’s reasoning that only the state legislature has standing to sue over usurpation of its powers under the Electors and Elections Clauses will be pretty persuasive.
By the way, if it is a case based solely on fraud or irregularities, as opposed to a structural, constitutional issue, I doubt there will be a single vote to grant cert. They will (correctly) view that as an issue properly resolved by the states under law enacted by the state legislature. The appointment of presidential electors is, after all, governed by state law, and state courts are the appropriate forum for resolving state law issues. Federal courts, including SCOTUS, have a very narrow role and are not referees of these elections.
Gorsuch sided with the majority? Was he checked for an aneurysm?
[One point: I don’t think anyone really views Gorsuch or Kavanaugh as “swing votes” like Roberts and Kennedy were. They are just conservative judges, and as such they act like judges rather than legislators. That means they won’t always reach the outcome conservatives want because they are following what they view as the law. Scalia was the same way. Kennedy and Roberts, by contrast, are intellectually dishonest and clearly were tailoring their reasoning to reach liberal results when it suited them.]
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.