Posted on 12/15/2020 9:25:41 PM PST by xomething
Both cases contested attendance limits placed on religious institutions that were not equally applied to secular ones, with the latter case also arguing that New Jersey’s mask mandate was applied more strictly to religious gatherings than secular establishments.
December 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The United States Supreme Court reversed a pair of lower court rulings that sided with COVID-19 restrictions over the religious liberty claims of churches on Tuesday, ordering the courts to reconsider the cases in light of its decision last month against similar health measures New York attempted to impose on religious institutions.
SCOTUSblog reports that the orders concern rulings against High Plains Harvest Church in Colorado and both Christian and Jewish houses of worship in New Jersey. Both cases contested attendance limits placed on religious institutions that were not equally applied to secular ones, with the latter case also arguing that New Jersey’s mask mandate was applied more strictly to religious gatherings than secular establishments.
The nation’s highest court ordered the lower courts to reconsider the cases in light of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision last month in favor of Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn against capacity limits imposed by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.
“Even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten,” the Court ruled in November. “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,” and “cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.”
Left-wing Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer signed a written dissent from the Colorado order but not the New Jersey one, on the grounds that Colorado had already withdrawn the restriction at issue.
Father Kevin Robinson, of St. Anthony of Padua in New Jersey, spoke to Fox News’s Tucker Carlson about the case back in May.
On December 10, 2020, a California Superior Court issued a preliminary injunction protecting Father Trevor Burfitt and his Catholic parishes from the discrimination being heaped on them by Governor Gavin Newsom and those under his authority in the name of COVID-19 prevention. Robinson and Burfitt are both priests of the Society of St. Pius X.
The New York ruling, which appears poised to determine the ultimate fate of COVID-19 restrictions in Colorado, New Jersey, and beyond, ultimately came down on the side of religious liberty thanks to the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s third nominee to the court, making the Supreme Court especially consequential to the fate of countless similar government actions going forward should former Vice President Joe Biden ultimately take office next month.
Youtube:Tucker Carlson: Priest sues New Jersey...
Is there anything they will rule on, while this country is on the brink of destruction.
If “President” Biden is able to replace any of the Conservative Justices (the Cowardly Chief is not a Conservative), religious liberty will be dead at SCOTUS.
Just wanted to highlight this.
This, they decide to roll up their judicial sleeves and get down into it. The Texas decision was apparently ‘past their pay grade’.
How very trite of them. You'd think
While difficult, I keep hoping Clarence Thomas would fall on his sword and retire, so President Trump could replace him with someone much younger, but just as originalist in philosophy. I realize he is a relatively young 72 year old and Ruth Commie G lived to 87, but imagine replacing Thomas with someone who is under 50 years old, like Amy Coney Barrett is. That would give us a lot more time before a Rat could communize that seat.
I know it won’t happen, but I wish Thomas would do it for the good of the nation. He won’t. They never do. They want to rule to the grave, no matter the consequences.
It’s hard to believe the Supreme Court did something good.
If Thomas retires today, there is no way Trump would be able to replace him. McConnell has done a great job in pushing Trump's nominations through, but another SCOTUS confirmation is not going to happen. Thomas has to hold out for an R POTUS or he will be replaced with a socialist.
This took 6 months to be ruled on. This is what’s wrong with the law now. Illegal orders go on ruining lives for way too long as the Supreme Court sits on its hands.
Have you looked at Trump's track record on SCOTUS nominees thus far? If the "originalist" he replaced Clarence Thomas with is as "good" as the "originalist" he replaced Scalia with, it would move the court well to the LEFT of where it is now.
they have every intention of packign the courts IF Biden ends up stealing this election
I mean this was important, but the Election fraud is MONUMENTAL....the consequences devastating....
“replacing Thomas with someone who is under 50 years old, like Amy Coney Barrett is.”
So far, not impressed with her — or Gorsuch or Kavanaugh.
Open the church, hold mass and be defiant. They get away with this because we let them.
But seven worthless cucks can trample all over it.
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.