Jump to content

Supreme Court, religious freedom vs. public health

Rate this topic


BrianBM

Recommended Posts

New decisions. Lead case is "South Bay United Pentecostal Church vs. Gavin Newsome, et. al., No. 19A1044

 

No complete citation to the official reporter yet, 590 US ____ (2020). Held: bans on gatherings of more than 10 not an unfair burden of freedom of religion.

A 5/4 decision, Chief Justice Roberts with the majority, and wrote the decision.

 

On a quick, first-skim reading, the Court very aware that California is in the process of re-opening the economy and relaxing restrictions in general. I am not sure that the decision would be the same if California was not doing so. Kavanaugh, Thomas, two others dissenting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 5-4 decision that says yes the government promised in article 1 to not infringe your right to exercise religion and not to infringe your right to peaceably assemble... and in fact they must obey that promise... except when they dont want to.

 

Nice.

 

If the Guv can tell you that your CANNOT practice religion... they can ALSO then tell you that your MUST practice a religion of their choosing.  I see no difference.  However, I suspect if the latter was the question under examination, the left would see this very differently than they do with the question that was before the Supremes.

Edited by hamlet

I won't tolerate your intolerance, because I hate hate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hamlet said:

A 5-4 decision that says yes the government promised in article 1 to not infringe your right to exercise religion and not to infringe your right to peaceably assemble... and in fact they must obey that promise... except when they dont want to.

 

Nice.

 

If the Guv can tell you that your CANNOT practice religion... they can ALSO then tell you that your MUST practice a religion of their choosing.  I see no difference.  However, I suspect if the latter was the question under examination, the left would see this very differently than they do with the question that was before the Supremes.

Your conclusion does not remotely follow from the decision. Have you read it? 

 

The Court's decision is conservative in the original sense of the word. If California's rule had been specific in barring meetings of more than 10 ONLY in churches, it would fail.  A religious exemption in favor of churches' assembling more than 10 at a time, in closed-packed groups, would violate the Constitutional ban on making law ":with respect to religion."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stryper Snyper said:

John Roberts..

 

That is all.

 

PS.   **** the WHO and the UN .

3 hours ago, Nessmuk said:

 

Yeah!  Another commie!  No doubt secretly owned by the WHO and the UN and whomever else President Trump dislikes!

Edited by BrianBM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that it is not uncommon for a court decision to be overturned.  Because the lower court was wrong.

 

It seems to me that virtually every litigation involves more than one legal opinion.

 

It seems to me that four SCOTUS judges agree with me.

 

It seems to me that I can read the Constitution, and tell for myself that Roberts is dead wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nessmuk, the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, for better or worse. A law that exempted church assemblies from a ban on the physical assembly of more than 10 people would be a law establishing a unique privilege for religion: churches can undermine public health, even if no one else can. A large part of South Korea's success in dealing with Covid-19 is the ferocity with which the government has descended on a particular church that preached secrecy and non-cooperation with the secular state. 

 

I concede no privilege whatsoever to any passionate believer who thinks that heightening my exposure to a disease is a necessary consequence of his religious practice. I don't care if it's sacrificing chickens in public parks or assembling in large congregations. Any law that protected such activities, while banning similar gatherings for other purposes, is a law effecting the establishment of religion. Any law that privileges specific religious activities of a kind that are otherwise restricted is a law effecting "the establishment of religion."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 mins ago, BrianBM said:

Your conclusion does not remotely follow from the decision. Have you read it? 

 

The Court's decision is conservative in the original sense of the word. If California's rule had been specific in barring meetings of more than 10 ONLY in churches, it would fail.  A religious exemption in favor of churches' assembling more than 10 at a time, in closed-packed groups, would violate the Constitutional ban on making law ":with respect to religion."

Where in the Constitution is the limit on the number of people allowed to peaceably assemble?    For whatever reason.   It can be suggested. It can be requested.  It can't be required.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah! So your view is that the Constitution bans measures directed to public health.

 

The Supreme Court has never held that way. Ever.

 

Until Covid-19, we haven't had a mass epidemic since 1918.  The law was formed in an earlier era when cholera, yellow fever, and various other diseases regularly swept over the US, leaving devastation in their wake.  However, the constitutional case law that addresses issues of individual liberty vs. public health was formed in an era when periodic epidemics were a normal occurrence.

4 mins ago, Stryper Snyper said:

Where in the Constitution is the limit on the number of people allowed to peaceably assemble?    For whatever reason.   It can be suggested. It can be requested.  It can't be required.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 min ago, BrianBM said:

Nessmuk, the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, for better or worse. A law that exempted church assemblies from a ban on the physical assembly of more than 10 people would be a law establishing a unique privilege for religion: churches can undermine public health, even if no one else can. A large part of South Korea's success in dealing with Covid-19 is the ferocity with which the government has descended on a particular church that preached secrecy and non-cooperation with the secular state. 

 

I concede no privilege whatsoever to any passionate believer who thinks that heightening my exposure to a disease is a necessary consequence of his religious practice. I don't care if it's sacrificing chickens in public parks or assembling in large congregations. Any law that protected such activities, while banning similar gatherings for other purposes, is a law effecting the establishment of religion. Any law that privileges specific religious activities of a kind that are otherwise restricted is a law effecting "the establishment of religion."

 

NO restrictions of Constitutional right should have occurred.  Religious or otherwise.  Not limits on religious practices.  Not arbitrary decisions on what is “essential” work.   Not governors making law instead of legislators.

Brian, what document did we the people provide to the government that permitted them to violate the limits we set on them?  The interpretation...of the government?

 

What defines an “Emergency?”  How long can it last?  Are there ANY guaranteed rights that are actually guaranteed?  You truly think the founders intended a government that had absolute power?  Because that’s exactly what you’re proposing.  “Just declare an emergency and do what you want.”

 

I’ve been willing to risk my life to protect your rights.  You don’t want to return the favor?  You’re actually OK with religious rights being restricted, and people’s livelihoods being destroyed...to increase you own chances?  Even when you could minimize your own risks yourself?

 

No, we will never agree on that.  I will opt for the risks over the tyranny every single day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 mins ago, BrianBM said:

Ah! So your view is that the Constitution bans measures directed to public health.

 

The Supreme Court has never held that way. Ever.

 

Until Covid-19, we haven't had a mass epidemic since 1918.  The law was formed in an earlier era when cholera, yellow fever, and various other diseases regularly swept over the US, leaving devastation in their wake.  However, the constitutional case law that addresses issues of individual liberty vs. public health was formed in an era when periodic epidemics were a normal occurrence.

 

 

Short answer is yes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...