U.S. Supreme Court rules 5-4 against California's Gov. Newsom's limits on in-home religious gatherings

Breaking 911 ^

[janetjanet998]

BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court rules 5-4 against California's Gov. Newsom's limits on in-home religious gatherings; Chief Justice Roberts dissented along with the three liberal justices

[janetjanet998]

seems this is day old news

[mikelets456]

This is not a win in the sense for the constitution...should have been 9-0 and Newsom thrown in jail.

[BenLurkin]

And this is why the ‘Rats want to poison SCOTUS with Democrat Party hacks.

[Trump20162020]

Roberts is just going full Souter now. He’s probably deeply broken up that Coney Barrett replaced Ginsburg and ended his little one-man “saving the Court” grandstanding show.

[untenured]

Trump’s three appointees and Justices Thomas and Alito were the majority, and Chief Justice Roberts was in the minority. I saw it speculated earlier today that the Chief Justice on some questions now will have to get used to being in the minority, and he might for that reason retire even before Justice Breyer.

[DIRTYSECRET]

Question: Were they allowed to have the meetings while awaiting the ruling? If not the rats got what they wanted. Make us work for everything. 5-4 is a moral victory for the rats.

[ScubaDiver]

His real power though - as Chief Justice - is the ability to assign the person to write the opinion whenever he’s in the majority. So, he could assign himself to blunt what might be an enormous victory for conservatives by significantly watering it down.

He could be a real spoiler that way.

[Starstruck]

5-4 for the Constitution. I hope the 4 are proud.

[BenLurkin]

“The decision noted it was the fifth time the court has rejected the Ninth Circuit’s analysis of California coronavirus restrictions.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-against-californias-limits-on-in-home-relgious-gatherings

Most of the so-called “news” media seems to be ignoring the story.

[teevolt]

We’re always on defense and barely hanging on.

[Bratch]

Narrow Victory, Supreme Court Blocks California COVID Compliance Ministry From Stopping In-Home Bible Study

April 10, 2021 | Sundance

In a narrow 5-4 ruling the Supreme Court has blocked California from stopping in-home bible study groups from their religious assembly.  Chief Justice Roberts joined the three leftist judges Kagan, Bryer and Sotomayor.   [pdf link here] Apparently the first amendment barely survived this visit by the high court.

• Amendment 1  – Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press:

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.

(SCOTUS BLOG) – […] In an unsigned opinion, the majority wrote that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s failure to put California’s COVID restrictions on hold was “erroneous.” The Supreme Court’s decisions in earlier challenges to COVID-related restrictions have, the justices wrote, “made several points clear.” Among other things, the majority stressed, government regulations are subject to heightened scrutiny whenever they treat any secular activity more favorably than religious activity; it doesn’t matter that the state also treats some secular businesses or activities poorly. Moreover, the majority added, a case may remain a live controversy even if the government changes the policy – particularly when, as here, “officials with a track record of ‘moving the goalposts’ retain authority to reinstate those heightened restrictions at any time.”

In her dissent, Kagan contended that the First Amendment “requires that a State treat religious conduct as well as the State treats comparable secular conduct.” That, she wrote, is what California has done, by adopting “a blanket restriction on at-home gatherings of all kinds.” (read more)

[TakebackGOP]

John Roberts is a bad man.

[Gene Eric]

Roberts is such a tool.

[BenLurkin]

Indeed. The “three ‘liberal’ justices” (and Roberts) voted for jackbooted government.

Some “liberals” they are.

[Czech_Occidentalist]

But if the five other justices write concurrences with different reasoning, does his opinion really count?

[taxcontrol]

Roberts continues to disapoint.

[Trump Girl Kit Cat]

Roberts does not disappoint WHEN one FINALLY realizes that he NEVER WAS a conservative justice once EVERYONE wakes up to the fact that he IS and will ALWAYS BE a liberal justice you will no longer be disappointed!!

[lightman]

Roberts to the dark side has gone.

[ScubaDiver]

I believe so because he’s authoring the majority opinion and it’s the majority opinion, not the concurrent opinion(s) that have the force of law.

IOW, six justices can all reach the same decision. But the reason for that decision that is articulated in the majority opinion will be the only opinion that enjoys binding precedent on future cases. The concurrent opinions could only - at best - be considered persuasive opinions.