It Has Started: Activist Court Rewrites Law

[9thIDdoc]

The Courts have always referred to the seriousness of this public health emergency and respected the state' right to take steps to protect the public.

No ... It's not the Supreme Court's job to legislate nor govern, and only to determine the Constitutionality of the law.

.

No? What in that statement was wrong?
When the Supreme Court rules a law unconstitutional, it does in fact interfere with legislation, in this case to keep the public safe in an emergency. Religion should have no special privileges to meet and break public health laws; the virus doesn't know why you're together or how holy you are, only that it can spread to a new host.

Legislation that is unconstitutional is illegal. Protecting the public from illegal legislation is the primary job of the Supreme Court.

With any luck at all, 99.9% of ministers in these critical areas will keep their doors closed and worship on line in order to keep their parishioners safe until the case #'s come down and public health officials give the all clear. Many outbreaks have been tied to church services all over the country. I agree with Kagan on this, all the way. Let's hope it doesn't lead to a slippery slope.

Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer, dissented from this order in a blunt opinion highlighting the possibility that her colleagues’ decision will kill people. “Justices of this Court are not scientists,” Kagan began. “Nor do we know much about public health policy. Yet today the Court displaces the judgments of experts about how to respond to a raging pandemic. … That mandate defies our caselaw, exceeds our judicial role, and risks worsening the pandemic.” She pointed out that, contrary to the court’s belief, California has not actually treated churches less favorably than secular businesses and assemblies: Political meetings, lectures, and plays are also banned, she wrote—and these “secular gatherings,” like religious worship, “are constitutionally protected” by the First Amendment. The court simply created “a special exception for worship services.”

“To state the obvious, judges do not know what scientists and public health experts do,” Kagan explained. “So it is alarming that the Court second-guesses the judgments of expert officials, and displaces their conclusions with its own. In the worst public health crisis in a century, this foray into armchair epidemiology cannot end well.”

The court does not make decisions based on what might or might not kill people. Neither do they appeal to science.

They rule on the constitutionality of a law.

Period.

The Courts have always referred to the seriousness of this public health emergency and respected the state' right to take steps to protect the public.

"Emergencies" don't last a year. The States don't have the right to over-rule the Constitutional rights of the People for any reason. Nor have any of the measures being yapped about been shown to actually protect anyone. If they were actually effective they would have worked long sense. Some folks seem determined to throw out the baby with the bath water.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

"Emergencies" don't last a year. The States don't have the right to over-rule the Constitutional rights of the People for any reason. Nor have any of the measures being yapped about been shown to actually protect anyone.

They were never about protecting anyone. From the beginning, they were never about anything other than an excuse for criminals who infest positions of power to seize and abuse power, to their own gain, and to the detriment of those whom they are supposed to be serving. It is about our public servants trying to be our masters.

 

[Esdraelon]

Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”

Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People

Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.

Just curious, besides being anti-Christian, is there ANY step a Democrat government might take that you'd consider too burdensome as long as they tell you it'd be for "your own good"? Only a blind partisan can refuse to look at what overreaching precedents can do to our freedoms.
It's pretty easy to push Christians around on the religious issue. When your heroes in DC try that with the guns...not so much...

 

[Faun]

The freedom of religion clause in the constitution doesn't have an asterisk by it saying "except during a pandemic".

The court finally got something right.

So someone can legally threaten to kill you since there's also no such asterisk on freedom of speech.