Why It Matters When New York's Governor Spits on SCOTUS's Defense of Religious Freedom

American Thinker.com ^ | December 1, 2020 | Jeffrey Folks

[Kaslin]

During the COVID-19 epidemic, Gov. Cuomo of New York and other governors have tried to shut down or limit attendance at America's churches. Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that Cuomo's COVID response, which limited church attendance to as few as ten or lower, violates the constitutional right to freedom of religion. It may be that the ruling has broad applicability to religious services throughout New York, as well as to those in California and all other states.

Gov. Cuomo's response to the Court's ruling was telling: he dismissed the judicial opinion because the situation on the ground had changed since the case was filed on Oct. 6, and he vowed to continue his restriction of church services at locations other than those mentioned in the Court's ruling. "I think this was really just an opportunity for the court to express its philosophy and politics," Cuomo stated.

Religious liberty is at the heart of our national identity. For a top liberal opinion-maker to say defending it is just "politics" is horrifying.

Sadly, in another display of judicial impotence, Chief Justice John Roberts dissented from the 5-4 ruling. He wrote that since conditions had changed, the Court should avoid addressing "a serious and difficult question." Bizarrely, he justified inaction based on the fact that it is "a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials." Isn't the Supreme Court designed specifically to decide "serious and difficult" questions? Doesn't the Supreme Court of the United States have the authority to override the determinations of New York state health officials? If it lacks that authority, it has no authority at all.

[Little Ray]

The fact that Cuomo and De Blasio are still alive are proof of the law abiding nature of the Right.

[FlipWilson]

In announcing his latest lockdown crepola, even NJ Gov Murphy acknowledged that churches were off limits as restricting them would be unconstitutional.

[DownInFlames]

Well, if the states are going select which sections of the constitution to enforce, what’s the purpose of the 13th amendment or all the bill of rights for that matter.

[PIF]

With that, SCOTUS slides into Oblivion ...

[Flick Lives]

If you can short circuit the Bill of Rights in emergency conditions, then governments will always operate under emergency conditions.

[NTHockey]

Ironically, Cuomo has given people the right to defy government orders.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Fundamentally, Governor C. takes the position that the government decides what is ultimately important.

This position is incompatible with the Bible, and it is incompatible with the Constitution.

Amendment 9

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

and

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

States had the recognized authority to quarantine sick people, and well people had the authority to chose their own risk tolerance WRT church attendance.

The Bill of Rights didn’t create any rights, it reified rights which were already recognized by the people. E.g., “the” RKBA and “the” freedom of speech.” For that reason pornography restrictions survived 1A - and so did libel laws, untouched (until the Warren SCOTUS went rogue in 1964).

For anyone who questions the Christian foundational premises in the Constitution, it suffices to point out that “the first day of the week” - Sunday - is a Christian holiday, observed much more during the founding era than today (at least, far more in 1950 than in 1970 - I can testify to that personally). And there is exactly one reference to “Sunday” in the Constitution - one which offhandedly makes reference to the fact that it was a holiday.