Massachusetts Supreme Court took away its citizens' essential private property rights

The Federalist ^ | 9-21-2021 | Ilya Feoktistov

[Paul46360]

In the waning days of 2020, as COVID-19 cases in Massachusetts were summiting the highest peak of the pandemic, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts decided that the First Amendment’s Assembly Clause does not protect private assembly by private citizens in “private homes.” According to the state’s high court, whether, when, and how the citizens of Massachusetts may gather in each other’s dens and bedrooms are all questions of “significant government interest” to the state’s governor, and are therefore within his regulatory power.

[Paul46360]

Loss for words.

[cuban leaf]

The scotus will shut this down.

However, I see the US as 50 separate “mostly sovereign” countries (similar to the EU). There are many of these countries I have no interest in visiting because they are counter to my world view and personal freedom.

[ClearCase_guy]

Wow

[Diogenesis]

these dictatorial
blackrobes without accountability
are not beholden to the US Constitution.

Malta?

Ireland, perhaps?

South Africa, most recently.

[qaz123]

There was a meme floating around last year when the lockdowns were happening and restaurants and bars were closed and they were doing their best to keep people from seeing each other.

Something to the effect.....Leading up to the Revolutionary War, the people in the colonies met in pubs and homes to discuss what the King was doing....something like that.

Wonder how true that is and if the globalists are doing what they do because of that tidbit of historical fact?

[qaz123]

Wasn’t it Ginsburg that said the US should scrap the Constitution and re-write one like the one they have in South Africa?

[cableguymn]

Never assume the supreme Court will do the right thing

[Paul46360]

"An appeal of this wrong decision, made in a case called Desrosiers v. Baker, is now among the 1,298 petitions that the U.S. Supreme Court will consider for review at its so-called Long Conference on Sept. 27. The odds that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the case are slim. The justices usually deny 99 percent of petitions for review, with only about a dozen cases making the cut."

[Paul46360]

Skeletor did say that.

[cableguymn]

And the modern day those pubs would be Twitter and facebook. And pretty much the same thing is happening there too

[Deaf Smith]

I did lots of observation of the natives when I was there in 98'-99'.

One example then was if one had more than X number of people for their backyard pool swim, you had to hire a State approved lifeguard.

[Antoninus]

I would argue that they don’t have the power to do that. They only have as much power as We the People are willing to give them.

[1Old Pro]

Never assume the supreme Court will do the right thing

Try to avoid putting yourself at the mercy of any court, it's nuts out there.

[ConservativeMind]

That is how my wife and I see it, as well.

[blueunicorn6]

We are not a nation of laws.

We are a nation of lawyers.

[Mouton]

One expect anything different from Assachusettes.

[Red Badger]

Mass-holes........................

[Mouton]

Good point. Add on to that the omnipresent government would rather have you on the net so they can monitor your speech and ideas.

[millenial4freedom]

Don’t worry, I’m sure Charlie Baker will intervene here and stop this insanity... </sarc>

[magna carta]

no kidding...just after that sigh of relief after the illegal takings from landlords across the USA from the CDC