Posted on 04/14/2021 7:48:56 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It was good to see the Supreme Court rule yet again in favor of religious liberty in the latest California case to reach the nation’s highest court. Yet the fact that the ruling was only 5-4, not to mention some of the reasoning in the dissenting opinion, gives real cause for concern. This should not have been a close vote at all. Instead, it should have been a slam dunk for religious freedoms.
As reported on Forbes, “The Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 margin late Friday that California's coronavirus-related restrictions on gathering in private homes violated constitutional rights on the free exercise of religion, the latest ruling from the high court that prohibits authorities from enforcing limits on religious services.”
Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the three liberal justices, and the dissenting opinion was written by Justice Elena Kagan.
As for the majority opinion, the reasoning was as follows.
“First, California treats some comparable secular activities more favorably than at-home religious exercise, permitting hair salons, retail stores, personal care services, movie theaters, private suites at sporting events and concerts, and indoor restaurants to bring together more than three households at a time.”
If these kinds of activities are permitted, why on earth would religious gatherings in the privacy of one’s home not be permitted? Based on what standard?
“Second, the Ninth Circuit did not conclude that those activities pose a lesser risk of transmission than applicants’ proposed religious exercise at home. The Ninth Circuit erroneously rejected these comparators simply because this Court’s previous decisions involved public buildings as opposed to private buildings.”
So, since the Supreme Court’s overturning the Ninth Circuit’s oppressive rulings against church gatherings only pertained to public buildings, they wrongly thought they could restrict the rights of Christians meeting in private homes.
Not so, SCOTUS ruled. Are you getting the message over there in the Ninth Circuit?
“Third, instead of requiring the State to explain why it could not safely permit at-home worshipers to gather in larger numbers while using precautions used in secular activities, the Ninth Circuit erroneously declared that such measures might not ‘translate readily’ to the home.”
Was there no hint of anti-religious bias in the Ninth Circuit ruling? Was it truly dispassionate and even-handed, just based on faulty logic? Call me a little skeptical here.
“And fourth, although California officials changed the challenged policy shortly after this application was filed, the previous restrictions remain in place until April 15th, and officials with a track record of ‘moving the goalposts’ retain authority to reinstate those heightened restrictions at any time.”
Moving the goalposts indeed, which is why so many people of good conscience in California have been fighting back.
Indeed, “This is the fifth time the Court has summarily rejected the Ninth Circuit’s analysis of California’s COVID restrictions on religious exercise.”
Kudos to the Supreme Court for getting this right. But serious concerns for the slim majority victory and even more for the dissenting viewpoint.
In short, Justice Kagan wrote, “California need not, as the [majority] insists, treat at-home religious gatherings the same as hardware stores and hair salons — and thus unlike at-home secular gatherings, the obvious comparator here” adding, “the law does not require that the State equally treat apples and watermelons.”
Put another way, California can discriminate against religious gatherings if it so chooses, since not all gatherings are created equal.
But, as noted in an op-ed on the Jewish Hamodia website, “The apples-watermelons analogy is only tenable if you are willing, like California’s experts, to ignore the plain facts, and if you are inclined to put aside freedom of religion during a pandemic.”
The editorial also cited the arguments of attorney Charles Limandri, on behalf of one of the aggrieved California churches: “Indeed, in rebuttal, LiMandri asserted that ‘there is no scientific data showing churches are more risky when they practice the protocols.’ LiMandri said his client’s church has not had any COVID-19 cases traced to exposure via its worship services. And he adduced a study showing indoor religious services have been held safely across the country without contributing to the spread of the virus, according to a report in Courthouse News Service.”
Back in February, Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Alito and Thomas, issued a strong rebuke to these California courts, writing, “once more, we appear to have a state playing favorites during a pandemic, expending considerable effort to protect lucrative industries (casinos in Nevada; movie studios in California) while denying similar largesse to its faithful.”
It is high time that the state of California, with its courts, along with other states and courts that are ruling against our religious liberties, get this right.
And it is quite scary that the matter is even one of debate.
Dr. Michael Brown (www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. He holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and has served as a professor at a number of seminaries. He is the author of 40 books. Connect with him on Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube.
Roberts fails. Again. The socialist-democrat quadrant remains true to their “religion.”
We are ONLY ONE VOTE from a dictatorship of the Resident-in-Chief, the Senate, the Court(s), and the (Pelosi’s) House.
We have been singing in Iowa since about October.
No cases form church contact. One pastor did catch it from going to hospice to minister to a dying man.
“...I have a sister in California whose church has held in-church Sunday services since May of 2020. No cases of the Wuhan Virus among their whole congregation, to this day. Their county sheriff has been very tolerant and the local police don’t enforce Newsome’s rules...”
Our church is a small church out in the country. We never did shut down. EVERYBODY in the church, at some point, came down with that crap. No one died. A few got pretty sick, myself included, but we all got over it.
Since then, we’ve continued as we always have.
The Soros cash helps ease his conscience, I'm sure.
“..Roberts does the bidding of his masters....”
He has no choice. He most likely compromised himself at Epstein’s pedo Island. IF so, then they have ALL the “goods” on him; pics, videos, etc.
IF he doesn’t tow the line, it will all be revealed...or even worse: he could possibly even end up like Scalia. Not to mention what’d they’d likely do to his family.
Don’t democrats want christians to get sick and die? Christians are against raping and murdering babies after all so they need to be stopped at all costs
We see that now, especially as we see they are trying to invent other "foreign" variants.
My advice to all is to stop using the language of the enemy to discuss, explain or develop a solution for OUR side of thinking.
At least I HOPE it is our side
F'rinstance ... NO ONE IN AMERICA .... HAS BEEN "DISENFRANCHISED" IN OVER 30 YEARS (my statement), yet the word is continually used by Congress on down.
No one in America is without ID ... the lefties see to THAT .... they need the welfare stats.
WTF UP, America.
Heck the Supreme Courts has been giving 5 to 4 and 4 to 5 rulings for years depending on the ratio of liberals to conservatives....oh forgive me John Roberts. I forgot that all judges are impartial.
No, it's much deeper than that. He trembles under someone's thumb and crawls each day dreading his revealing.
Hell, there was the group of congressional lefties a couple years ago who wrote a scornful letter to the WSJ pointing out that "we all know now that Roberts' head can be turned, it's just a matter of when."
Thanks RACPE.
I had COVID. Symptoms were so mild I would have ignored them had I not been a heart patient.
Kagan uses the “apples to watermelons” analogy to say churches don’t need to be treated the same as hairdressers and hardware stores. Ok. The right to visit your hairdresser or by hardware is not explicitly in the constitution, freedom to exercise religion is. If anything religious gatherings must be given wider berth than other activities.
He probably thinks it to be his due.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Federal career lawmakers don't want to dirty their voting records by exercising their 14th Amendment (14A) power to make penal code to discourage activist state actors like Gov. Newsom from abridging constitutionally enumerated protections, weaponizing state power to quarantine to abridge 1st Amendment-protected religious expression in this example.
Excerpted from the 14th Amendment:
"Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
In other words, lawmakers have unconstitutionally surrendered their legislative powers to activist justices who know that corrupt Congress isn't going to remove them from the bench no matter how they decide a case.
The remedy for corrupt federal government is for patriots to primary (2022) candidate lawmakers who don't agree to make penal laws to discourage anti-Christian activist state actors, for example, from making things difficult for people who value their freedom of religious expression.
But electing new federal lawmakers isn't the only way for patriots to fight state abridgment of constitutionally enumerated protections.
More specifically, patriots can also work with their respective state lawmakers to amend state constitutions to discourage state actors from abusing state powers. Like they will do with bad-apple federal lawmakers, patriots need to first primary candidate state lawmakers who don't agree to take the following action with state constitutions.
State constitutions need to be amended to put time limits on lockdowns and on the mandatory wearing of masks.
State constitutions also need to be amended to make state health and environmental protection officials elected by popular vote.
Constitutionally time-limited lockdowns and limited mask requirements need to automatically trigger special recall elections for governors, mayors and disaster officials who order lockdowns and mask wearing, also state lawmakers.
Finally, constitutions need to require people planning to run for state and local offices to escrow a refundable "recall deposit" before becoming a candidate, the deposit fully paying in advance for their possible recall elections if they are elected, amounts determined by law.
In fact, each state should ultimately take the advice of Justice Brandeis who had volunteered his "laboratories of democracy" metaphor to emphasize the unique 10th Amendment powers of the states and the people to experiment with social policy, ultimately depending on what legal majority citizen voters of each state want.
"It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose [emphasis added], serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” —Justice Brandeis, Laboratories of democracy.
Finally, getting back to the big, bad federal government, in addition to giving the boot to career lawmakers who refuse to strengthen constitutionally enumerated protections, patriots also need to demand the following from the federal government.
When the federal government accuses someone of violating one of its laws, the accused needs to be informed of at least the common name of the constitutional clause that arguably justifies the law for further scrutiny of the constitutionality of that law, especially where our 2nd Amendment safety net is concerned.
Insights welcome.
But of course he did, cause he's a dick in search of one.
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.