Posted on 11/26/2020 5:09:14 AM PST by LoveMyFreedom
So what was roberts logic in his dissent? How could he interpret the constitution any way except how it is written?
Thank you Donald for the foresight to give us Amy.
Maybe ‘gathered’ isn’t the word.
Maybe ‘subpoenaed’ would be better.
At any rate: RBG has been plucked outside of time and space, and is facing the True Supreme Court.
Let’s hope that all of us gain mercy in that place.
This is a very interesting case with very interesting opinions.
The most interesting opinion is Breyer’s dissent, in which he describes COVID as “in many cases fatal”.
I’m an infectious diseases specialist, I actively treat COVID and am treating it today. So - I believe it’s real, I believe it’s worse than influenza, and I believe people die from it. I also believe the States (not the Feds) have a general police power which allows them to create LAWS to protect the public health.
And, since I have been here since May 1998, I also agree with the decision and I am a bit surprised it was close.
I have a question, though, for the anti-restriction absolutists who are in the majority here:
Suppose Ebola, with a 70% mortality (and infection only via contact) instead could spread like COVID? Suppose Ebola rates could rise in days like COVID rates can do?
Would we then be arguing about this? Would the Court not have ruled 9-0 that restrictions on gatherings were permitted under the Constitution?
So really the whole thing (including the use of mail-in ballots to subvert the election) turns on Mr. Justice Breyer’s subjective use of “in many cases fatal” language, right?
If anybody thinks that we have a “conservative” court, I have a bridge to sell you.
One vote is all that stands between freedom and slavery.
Roberts’ dissenting opinion just further proves to me that the liberals have something very damning on him or they are paying him very well. It’s a shame because I used to think very highly of him. Roberts has been a total and utter disappointment and a disgrace to the Supreme Court.
No he's not.
He's an petulant anti-constitutionalist POS who should never, ever have been gifted the station and power he has.
He would look awesome choking on the end of fkn rope... where statist d*ck eaters like him belong.
I’m not an absolutist on these issues, but it’s worth discussing a couple of key issues. ‘
1. The executive orders being issued to restrict religious gatherings appear to be singling out religion. How do they justify banning religious gatherings, when gatherings in liquor stores and retail establishments continue unfettered? And why are “black lives matter” protests allowed, if any gathering is said to spread the virus? It seems that establishments of religion are receiving unequal and discriminatory treatment by government officials.
2. Covid is fatal in some cases, but is hardly as fatal as a disease such as Ebola, which you mentioned. This virus is not smallpox, is not Ebola, is not a return of the Bubonic plague. Yet we are treating is in a zero tolerance manner, as if we are all equally at risk, and behaving as if it is fatal to all who are exposed to it. If it were as fatal as some other diseases, I think many of us would think differently about how we have decided to deal with Covid. There is so much collateral damage from these restrictions on us which the powers that be are not taking into account as they put us all under forms of house arrest.
that said false premise. First our constitutional rights are absolute they do not depend on whatever illness is out there. Second if covid had a 70% fatality rate it would quickly burn itself through the vulnerable population and die out. it’s with that high a fatality rate are not particularly good at spreading because they kill their host before they can spread. Third if there truly was a high fatality rate people would make different personal choices about isolation themselves and their family. Freedom is what this is about - the freedom to make our own choices after assessing the danger. On top of it all there is no evidence masking and isolation. make any difference in the spread of the disease so it is likely a moot point anyway
“Would the Court not have ruled 9-0 that restrictions on gatherings were permitted under the Constitution?”
The ruling doesn’t say no restrictions are allowed. They said restrictions must not single out religion. In essence, they said a church can be treated like an essential business, since it IS “essential” to believers.
From the decision:
“Citing a variety of remarks made by the Governor, Agudath Israel argues that the Governor specifically targeted the Orthodox Jewish community and gerrymandered the boundaries of red and orange zones to ensure that heavily Orthodox areas were included. Both the Diocese and Agudath Israel maintain that the regulations treat houses of worship much more harshly than comparable secular facilities. And they tell us without contradiction that they have complied with all public health guidance, have implemented additional precautionary measures, and have operated at 25% or 33% capacity for months without a single outbreak....
...But even if we put those comments aside, the regulations cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment. In a red zone, while a synagogue or church may not admit more than 10 persons, businesses categorized as “essential” may admit as many people as they wish. And the list of “essential” businesses includes things such as acupuncture facilities, camp grounds, garages....
...While attendance at houses of worship is limited to 25 persons, even non-essential businesses may decide for themselves how many persons to admit.
These categorizations lead to troubling results. At the hearing in the District Court, a health department official testified about a large store in Brooklyn that could “literally have hundreds of people shopping there on any given day.” App. to Application in No. 20A87, Exh. D, p. 83. Yet a nearby church or synagogue would be prohibited from allowing more than 10 or 25 people inside for a worship service....”
Not so fast...
As much of a POS as Roberts has turned into, don’t be surprised if he picks a Biden term to announce his early retirement — giving the left a chance for a hardcore Marxist pick.
Well hell yes he did. He would never ever make it to the governors mansion if he did the whole Bush never Trumper thang in a conservative Trump lovin state like Texas.
It's called politics.
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.