Posted on 11/26/2020 2:42:24 PM PST by Kaslin
Alas, we have a victory for religious freedom in the COVID lockdown era. The Supreme Court recently ruled that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo illegally targeted churches in his COVID lockdown order—and Justice Amy Coney Barrett was the deciding vote. In the 5-4 decision, the Court ruled Cuomo’s edict violated First Amendment rights (via NYT):
The Supreme Court late Wednesday night barred restrictions on religious services in New York that Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo had imposed to combat the coronavirus.The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the court’s three liberal members in dissent. The order was the first in which the court’s newest member, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, played a decisive role.
[…]
In an unsigned opinion, the majority said Mr. Cuomo’s restrictions violated the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said Mr. Cuomo had treated secular activities more favorably than religious ones.
“It is time — past time — to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques,” Justice Gorsuch wrote.
The court’s order addressed two applications: one filed by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, the other by two synagogues, an Orthodox Jewish organization and two individuals. The applications both said Mr. Cuomo’s restrictions violated constitutional protections for the free exercise of religion, and the one from the synagogues added that Mr. Cuomo had “singled out a particular religion for blame and retribution for an uptick in a societywide pandemic.”
The Supreme Court late Wednesday night barred restrictions on religious services in New York that Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo had imposed to combat the coronavirus.
The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the court’s three liberal members in dissent. The order was the first in which the court’s newest member, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, played a decisive role.
[…]
In an unsigned opinion, the majority said Mr. Cuomo’s restrictions violated the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said Mr. Cuomo had treated secular activities more favorably than religious ones.
“It is time — past time — to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques,” Justice Gorsuch wrote.
The court’s order addressed two applications: one filed by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, the other by two synagogues, an Orthodox Jewish organization and two individuals. The applications both said Mr. Cuomo’s restrictions violated constitutional protections for the free exercise of religion, and the one from the synagogues added that Mr. Cuomo had “singled out a particular religion for blame and retribution for an uptick in a societywide pandemic.”
Fock Snooze should’ve reported it just like that.
This court opinion only stops Coumo’s edicts until the 2nd Circuit Court issues it’s ruling. It isn’t over yet.
We all owe Ruth Buzzy a debt of gratitude for croaking when she did.
Thanks Ruthie!
Exactly. If Justice Roberts can't follow the Constitution, he should be called a Liberal not a Conservative. He is an Obamamanian, that is how I see him, not a Constitutionalist as he was want to be known as.
Exactly. And WTF is his problem? The closet?
Roberts sucks...thanks GWB, for nothing.
Maybe. But I seem to remember a picture of Roberts outside of a bank in Malta a couple of days after his ruling on Obama Care "tax". Paid off first, blackmailed forever after...?
No court has the authority to do either of those things.
Remember folks
We only have a 5-4 court.
Libtards want to push the incorrect view its a 6-3 court
But they know they are pushing a false narrative to make things seem far worse for them than it is.
Its only a 5-4 court.
I would like to give a shout out to Ruthie G, and hope she is enjoying her roast.
Remember folks
We only have a 5-4 court.
It’s 4-4 at best. Kavanaugh is shaping up to be Anthony Kennedy 2.0. Gorsuch has left the reservation on occasion, too. The left has a solid block of the 3 Democrats and Roberts now. Not good. All they need to do is flip one of Kavanaugh or Gorsuch on the big cases.
There are MANY answers to that question. I won't go into that.
Most, in the know, say his LEFT leaning decisions are because he's compromised due to the fact that he is GAY and rather than coming out of the closet continues to portray that he is a staunch "family" man.
There are MANY answers to that question. I won't go into that.
Most, in the know, say his LEFT leaning decisions are because he's compromised due to the fact that he is GAY and rather than coming out of the closet continues to portray that he is a staunch "family" man.
At best its 5-4
In worse conditions 4-5, or 3-6
What does it mean “removes obstacle”? It doesn’t seem like he was removed. Weird choice of words.
“They must have pictures of him with his pants down around his knees”
And much, much more!
Because he could be properly blackmailed about his kids by the deep state.
Why is Roberts the chief justice?
...because Harriet Miers was not available.
I read the decision, along with the concurrences and dissents, and it gave me hope that SCOTUS would get involved in the rigging of this election. President Trump's lawyers need to get those cases to SCOTUS ASAP.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I absolutely agree with you. " There is an appointed time for man to die." By appointment!!!
a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot, Ecclesiastes 3:2
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.