SCOTUS Rules Against Cuomo's 10 Person Cap at Churches/Synagogues

[Nostra]

ACB made the difference. Of course turn coat Roberts sided with the socialists.

In a 5-4 ruling, Supreme Court sides with religious groups in a dispute over Covid-19 restrictions in New York

In a 5-4 ruling, the US Supreme Court sided with religious organizations in a dispute over Covid-19 restrictions put in place by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo limiting the number of people attending religious services.

www.cnn.com

Poor statists. They’ll have to “pack” the Supreme Court if they want to get their way now.

Why do they want to murder religious people?

Why does Cuomo want to murder people at other gatherings?
The case proves that the rules were different for religious gatherings versus non-religious gatherings and businesses.

Where does cuomo try to murder people at other gatherings?

He did a bang up job in old folks homes.....

He followed federal guidelines on dealing with overflowing hospitals. Too bad there wasn't a pandemic response team to correct things on the fly.

Who's fault was that?

There were plenty of hospital beds. And federal guidelines said nothing about forcing Kung Flu infected people into nursing homes, Dummy.

You are incorrect.

This is not unusual for you.

You are stupid, a liar, or both. My money is on both Crepitus

It is too easy to prove you are both.............


Why USNS Comfort, Javits Center are mostly empty as coronavirus strains New York ERs

Why USNS Comfort, Javits Center are mostly empty as coronavirus strains New York ERs

The USNS Comfort and the Javits Center field hospital remain practically empty of COVID-19 patients as both Department of Defense-run facilities strictly manage intake while getting up to speed &#8…

nypost.com

.

You are still incorrect. It seem to be your normal state of being.

My link proves you are a lying sack of shit.

Dismissed.

 

[Lesh]

Cuomo doesn't seem to be able to grasp what this ruling does. When I note this it doesn't mean I support it all. It simply means I am noting what is going to happen. Those who for whatever reason want to throw all caution to the wind will now feel empowered to buck any rules.

Cuomo really has his hands tied now despite saying this ruling doesn't really mean much. He can no longer impose rules on some while ignoring others and if he tries people will simply ignore them. If he tries to do it the legal way, he loses.

Supreme Court ruling doesn’t have 'any practical effect,' Cuomo says

This one is tough for me because as I said, our church voluntarily shut down. I hate that people have so little concern for others.

On the other hand I despise an unfair authoritarian government.

So on the one hand we're told that a total lock down would be unacceptable but here we see that targeted mitigation efforts can be blocked under equal protection regs.

So what does that leave?

 

[pknopp]

Cuomo doesn't seem to be able to grasp what this ruling does. When I note this it doesn't mean I support it all. It simply means I am noting what is going to happen. Those who for whatever reason want to throw all caution to the wind will now feel empowered to buck any rules.

Cuomo really has his hands tied now despite saying this ruling doesn't really mean much. He can no longer impose rules on some while ignoring others and if he tries people will simply ignore them. If he tries to do it the legal way, he loses.

Supreme Court ruling doesn’t have 'any practical effect,' Cuomo says

This one is tough for me because as I said, our church voluntarily shut down. I hate that people have so little concern for others.

On the other hand I despise an unfair authoritarian government.

So on the one hand we're told that a total lock down would be unacceptable but here we see that targeted mitigation efforts can be blocked under equal protection regs.

So what does that leave?

Fair and equal rules. If a church can only allow 25% all places can only allow 25%.

Its not that difficult.

 

[9thIDdoc]

What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law

What we have are godless libs in positions of power who hate Christians and practicing religious Jews

I will say in Europe... Clergy have been very supportive and move everything on line...
Mass on Facebook
Confession on Zoom
Individual family visits

The attitude is that you don't put your neighbour at risk, love your neighbour as yourself. Actually the church has taken a very important place during European lockdowns...

To ignore the best scientific advise to attend church would be considered unchristian..

People have a right to decide for themselves what is "unchristian" or to be as "unchristian" as they like and to decide for themselves what the best scientific advice is. We don't have an American lockdown and will defend the right not to tolerate such tyranny.

 

[hadit]

SCOTUS RULES AGAINST CUOMO’S 10 PERSON CAP AT CHURCHES/SYNAGOUGES. “Even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.”

The regulations cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.1 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, campgrounds, garages, as well as many whose services are not limited to those that can be regarded as essential, such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and microelectronics and all transportation facilities.

The disparate treatment is even more striking in an orange zone. 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.” Yet a nearby church or synagogue would be prohibited from allowing more than 10 or 25 people inside for a worship service. And the Governor has stated that factories and schools have contributed to the spread of COVID–19, but they are treated less harshly than the Diocese’s churches and Agudath Israel’s synagogues, which have admirable safety records.

Because the challenged restrictions are not “neutral” and of “general applicability,” they must satisfy “strict scrutiny,” and this means that they must be “narrowly tailored” to serve a “compelling” state interest.

Stemming the spread of COVID–19 is unquestionably a compelling interest, but it is hard to see how the challenged regulations can be regarded as “narrowly tailored.” They are far more restrictive than any COVID–related regulations that have previously come before the Court, much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard-hit by the pandemic, and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus at the applicants’ services. The District Court noted that “there ha[d] not been any COVID–19 outbreak in any of the Diocese’s churches since they reopened,” and it praised the Diocese’s record in combatting the spread of the disease. It found that the Diocese had been constantly “ahead of the curve, enforcing stricter safety protocols than the State required.” Similarly, Agudath Israel notes that “[t]he Governor does not dispute that [it] has rigorously implemented and adhered to all health protocols and that there has been no outbreak of COVID–19 in [its] congregations.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf

AMY!

What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law. None of this is true. Clearly they are legislatting from the bench. The Constitution does recognize emergencies and as it does when it allows a President to suspend habeas corpus.

Would you be so kind as to quote the relevant portions of the edict that make it clear all the restrictions apply equally to all places where more than one person can be reasonably expected to be at any given time? Because that is the core of the edict's righteous smackdown from the court.

 

[hadit]

What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law.

It seems pretty clear ...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Memorize it.

No one is preventing any worship. Only the form of it is being regulated. Churches have become super spreaders of the coronavirus.

Moron..........

No one is preventing freedom of the press when only the government is allowed to operate news agencies, just the form of it is being regulated.....

Do you see how stupid your point is?

Your point is stupid. No one is preventing on-line worship so no one is banning freedom of religion.

The 1st Amendment doesn't say "Freedom of religion as specified by the government." If any business is allowed to have more than 10 people, then you can't deny the same ability to churches, you doofus.........

It's been a bunch of baloney from the start when they shut down churches but kept liquor stores open and tried to arrest people sitting in their cars in a church parking lot.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Cuomo doesn't seem to be able to grasp what this ruling does. When I note this it doesn't mean I support it all. It simply means I am noting what is going to happen. Those who for whatever reason want to throw all caution to the wind will now feel empowered to buck any rules.

Cuomo really has his hands tied now despite saying this ruling doesn't really mean much. He can no longer impose rules on some while ignoring others and if he tries people will simply ignore them. If he tries to do it the legal way, he loses.

Supreme Court ruling doesn’t have 'any practical effect,' Cuomo says

This one is tough for me because as I said, our church voluntarily shut down. I hate that people have so little concern for others.

On the other hand I despise an unfair authoritarian government.

So on the one hand we're told that a total lock down would be unacceptable but here we see that targeted mitigation efforts can be blocked under equal protection regs.

So what does that leave?

That leaves government not having the authority to make our personal decisions for us. "LIBERTY and justice for all..."

 

[Mac-7]

I will say in Europe... Clergy have been very supportive and move everything on line...

I wonder how many euro clergy even believe in God?

 

[Zorro!]

Cuomo doesn't seem to be able to grasp what this ruling does. When I note this it doesn't mean I support it all. It simply means I am noting what is going to happen. Those who for whatever reason want to throw all caution to the wind will now feel empowered to buck any rules.

Cuomo really has his hands tied now despite saying this ruling doesn't really mean much. He can no longer impose rules on some while ignoring others and if he tries people will simply ignore them. If he tries to do it the legal way, he loses.

Supreme Court ruling doesn’t have 'any practical effect,' Cuomo says

This one is tough for me because as I said, our church voluntarily shut down. I hate that people have so little concern for others.

On the other hand I despise an unfair authoritarian government.

So on the one hand we're told that a total lock down would be unacceptable but here we see that targeted mitigation efforts can be blocked under equal protection regs.

So what does that leave?

With newspapers and cable news spending Thanksgiving in gloom over the Supreme Court upholding the First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

Politico reported, "The Supreme Court signaled a major shift in its approach to corona virus-related restrictions late Wednesday, voting 5-4 to bar New York state from reimposing limits on religious gatherings.

The emergency rulings, issued just before midnight, were the first significant indication of a constitutional shift in the court since President Donald Trump’s newest appointee — Justice Amy Coney Barrett — last month filled the seat occupied by leftwing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in September.

"In May and July, the Supreme Court narrowly rejected challenges to virus-related restrictions on churches in California and Nevada, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court’s Democrat appointees to stress that state and local governments required flexibility to deal with a dangerous and evolving pandemic.

Support on the high court for those rulings shrank with Ginsburg’s death. Wednesday night’s orders granting emergency relief to Roman Catholic churches and to Jewish congregations in New York demonstrated that Barrett would side with the court’s constitutionalist justices in insisting on equal accommodation for religious practices.

In electing Donald Trump president, voters called for an end to the constant and relentless attack on our churches and traditions as Americans.

This is only the beginning of the return to normal.

 

[Zorro!]

SCOTUS swats Cuomo: You can’t shut down churches while keeping businesses open


“But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.”

Finally. As Justice Neil Gorsuch writes in a scathing concurrence, “It is time—past time—to make plain” that the Constitution applies at all times, even in pandemics. In a 5-4 vote late on Wednesday evening, the Supreme Court issued an injunction against Governor Andrew Cuomo’s order that allowed businesses to operate at the capacity of their choosing but limited religious services to either 10 or 25 people at a time.

The Supreme Court blocked New York from imposing strict limits on attendance at religious services to combat Covid-19, with new Justice Amy Coney Barrett casting the pivotal vote to depart from past cases that deferred to state authorities on public-health measures.

In orders issued late Wednesday, the court set aside attendance limits that Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo imposed on houses of worship in areas most severely affected by the coronavirus: 10 people in red zones and 25 in orange zones. New York classifies places where coronavirus infections are of increasing severity as yellow, orange or red. …

The court found it troubling that businesses that the state considered essential weren’t subject to the same occupancy limits. Those included “things such as acupuncture facilities, campgrounds, garages, as well as many whose services are not limited to those that can be regarded as essential, such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and microelectronics and all transportation facilities,” the court said.

Equal Protection and First Amendment

“Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area,” the opinion said. But New York’s restrictions “strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.”

“Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience?” Gorsuch wrote in his concurrence about the lack of similar restrictions on the aforementioned businesses in the Wall Street Journal’s quote. But Gorsuch had more on his mind than just New York’s latest — or semi-latest — attempts to arbitrarily impose disparate limits on religious worship. Gorsuch also pointedly called out the court for its earlier pusillanimity on similar cases, especially in Nevada:

In recent months, certain other Governors have issued similar edicts. At the flick of a pen, they have asserted the right to privilege restaurants, marijuana dispensaries, and casinos over churches, mosques, and temples. See Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, 591 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (GORSUCH, J., dissenting). In far too many places, for far too long, our first freedom has fallen on deaf ears. …

Too long

Why have some mistaken this Court’s modest decision in Jacobson for a towering authority that overshadows the Constitution during a pandemic? In the end, I can only surmise that much of the answer lies in a particular judicial impulse to stay out of the way in times of crisis. But if that impulse may be understandable or even admirable in other circumstances, we may not shelter in place when the Constitution is under attack. Things never go well when we do.

This comes down to the issue of scrutiny. When government actions proscribe or interfere with a constitutional right, especially an explicit right enumerated in the Constitution, it requires a strict-scrutiny review. That means New York has to identify a compelling state interest, for which public health and pandemic control certainly qualify, but also demonstrate that the intrusion is narrowly tailored and rationally based. The state has no evidence that worship services when following proper social-distancing protocols and disinfecting regimes present any more risk than the businesses that the state allows to operate with lesser or no restrictions. That means it’s plainly discriminatory and arbitrary as well as unconstitutional.

Amazingly, Chief Justice John Roberts doesn’t disagree — and yet still didn’t join the majority. He voted against injunctive relief while generally tilting toward the majority’s read on Cuomo’s restrictions at the time the suit was filed. Roberts argued that the issue was not ripe for injunctive relief because Cuomo had relaxed the restrictions, which Roberts admitted “do seem unduly restrictive” and might well “violate the Free Exercise clause.” At this point, the issue looks moot-ish, Roberts argued:

I would not grant injunctive relief under the present circumstances. There is simply no need to do so. After the Diocese and Agudath Israel filed their applications, the Governor revised the designations of the affected areas. None of the houses of worship identified in the applications is now subject to any fixed numerical restrictions. At these locations, the applicants can hold services with up to 50% of capacity, which is at least as favorable as the relief they currently seek.

But, now they can't rimpose them without equal treatment

Numerical capacity limits of 10 and 25 people, depending on the applicable zone, do seem unduly restrictive. And it may well be that such restrictions violate the Free Exercise Clause. It is not necessary, however, for us to rule on that serious and difficult question at this time. The Governor might reinstate the restrictions. But he also might not. And it is a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic. If the Governor does reinstate the numerical restrictions the applicants can return to this Court, and we could act quickly on their renewed applications. As things now stand, however, the applicants have not demonstrated their entitlement to “the extraordinary remedy of injunction.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 428 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). An order telling the Governor not to do what he’s not doing fails to meet that stringent standard.

Settle the issue

As noted, the challenged restrictions raise serious concerns under the Constitution, and I agree with JUSTICE KAVANAUGH that they are distinguishable from those we considered in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U. S. ___ (2020), and Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, 591 U. S. ___ (2020). See ante, at 1, 3–4 (concurring opinion). I take a different approach than the other dissenting Justices in this respect.

The problem with this argument, Gorsuch argued in his concurrence, is that Cuomo appears to be acting even more arbitrarily in changing the restrictions around as this case worked through the courts. Justice Brett Kavanaugh rebutted Roberts in a slightly different manner. The problem with relying on the momentary status quo is that the underlying order remains in place, Kavanaugh wrote. If Cuomo never changes it, then an injunction will do no harm — but will signal clearly the boundaries to Cuomo and other governors:

For those reasons, I agree with THE CHIEF JUSTICE that New York’s “[n]umerical capacity limits of 10 and 25 people . . . seem unduly restrictive” and that “it may well be that such restrictions violate the Free Exercise Clause.” Post, at 1. I part ways with THE CHIEF JUSTICE on a narrow procedural point regarding the timing of the injunctions. THE CHIEF JUSTICE would not issue injunctions at this time. As he notes, the State made a change in designations a few days ago, and now none of the churches and synagogues who are applicants in these cases are located in red or orange zones. As I understand it, THE CHIEF JUSTICE would not issue an injunction unless and until a house of worship applies for an injunction and is still in a red or orange zone on the day that the injunction is finally issued. But the State has not withdrawn or amended the relevant Executive Order. And the State does not suggest that the applicants lack standing to challenge the red-zone and orange-zone caps imposed by the Executive Order, or that these cases are moot or not ripe. In other words, the State does not deny that the applicants face an imminent injury today. In particular, the State does not deny that some houses of worship, including the applicants here, are located in areas that likely will be classified as red or orange zones in the very near future. I therefore see no jurisdictional or prudential barriers to issuing the injunctions now.

Settle the issue

There also is no good reason to delay issuance of the injunctions, as I see it. If no houses of worship end up in red or orange zones, then the Court’s injunctions today will impose no harm on the State and have no effect on the State’s response to COVID–19. And if houses of worship end up in red or orange zones, as is likely, then today’s injunctions will ensure that religious organizations are not subjected to the unconstitutional 10-person and 25-person caps. Moreover, issuing the injunctions now rather than a few days from now not only will ensure that the applicants’ constitutional rights are protected, but also will provide some needed clarity for the State and religious organizations.

Precisely. The Supreme Court should have set this boundary in the ridiculously easy case of Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, decided wrongly in July on a 5-4 vote. Nevada had imposed onerous restrictions on worship services while allowing casinos and other businesses to operate at 50% capacity. The court refused to intervene, leading Gorsuch and Samuel Alito to write stinging dissents:

“That Nevada would discriminate in favor of the powerful gaming industry and its employees may not come as a surprise, but this Court’s willingness to allow such discrimination is disappointing,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a dissent joined by Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh.

Disappointing

“We have a duty to defend the Constitution, and even a public health emergency does not absolve us of that responsibility,” Alito said. “The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about freedom to play craps or blackjack, to feed tokens into a slot machine or to engage in any other game of chance.”

Free Exercise

Kavanaugh also wrote his own dissent, as did Justice Neil Gorsuch, who said today’s world “with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges.”
“But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel,” Gorsuch wrote.

The court’s refusal to deal with such an obvious case of First Amendment violations emboldened governors to continue to act arbitrarily to violate those civil rights. Had Roberts acted when he should have in Calvary Chapel, there would have likely have been no need to intervene now. Roberts learned nothing from that failure, even though he admits that Cuomo was using his power abusively in this instance. It’s amazing that this decision didn’t go 6-3 after Calvary Chapel … and that it wasn’t 9-0 even apart from that. And by amazing, I mean shameful.

 

[Nostra]

I get a laugh out of our board Dimwingers who are all butthurt that the little Hitler with a big nose up in NY got bitchslapped trying to be a dictator.

 

[DJT for Life]

What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law

What we have are godless libs in positions of power who hate Christians and practicing religious Jews

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. You are a piece of shit that thinks that anyone who disagrees with you is godless. Protecting people's lives is more important. Jesus said to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. You honor God by living your life by God's word. Going to church does not show any commitment to God.

How can he be clueless when you do not know what happened.

Cuomo and NY State played politics.with this and at the last moment attempted to withdraw their case
because they knew all along that they were beat. The SCOTUS would not allow them to withdraw their
case. They forced them to defend their poistion to allow the Court to set precedent. None of this was only about religion
it was about the equal protection clause. Quite simply Governors cannot pick winners. You order one place close
then all places close. You close a movie theater then you close a Grocery Store. You close a gym, then you close a drug
store.

This virus has a group of people that are at a very high risk of death. The obligation is to protect those people by
explaining the risks to them. From that point the choice is theirs.

Dems were caught playing politics and SCOTUS has now announced that they are not going to allow games to be
played with the constitution. Nobody is ordering you to leave your home. If you wish to remain at home, lying under the
bed in the fetal position, then do it, nobody is stopping you. At the same, nobody is gonna tell me when I can leave my
home. Nobody can tell me who I can invite to my house. In this country nobody has that right.

If I go to a grocery store and they have a sign that I must wear a mask...that is a private business, and I must adhere
to their rules if I need to enter their establishment. If I am not wearing a mask walking down the street, then keep
away from me and do not engage in conversation with me. America is a land of choices and we all get to establish
our own choices.

Republicans have done the same things.

So what

 

[airplanemechanic]

What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law.

It seems pretty clear ...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Memorize it.

No one is preventing any worship. Only the form of it is being regulated. Churches have become super spreaders of the coronavirus.

Too fucking bad. The constitution doesn't have an asterisk next to the freedom of religion saying "except during a pandemic."

And there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF that churches have become SUPER SPREADERS so quit fucking lying.

 

[fncceo]

Only the form of it is being regulated

What part of ...

"... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

... do you find confusing?

 

[airplanemechanic]

You are a piece of shit that thinks that anyone who disagrees with you is godless. Protecting people's lives is more important

Lives are not important enough to godless libs or they would end the riots that take place in democrat run cities across America

the fact is that liberals talk out of both sides of their mouth.

gov newsome tells californians to cancel Thanksgiving because it reminds the left of God

but then he attends a mask-less banquet for one of his moneybag fundraisers

Apparently lives are not important to you right wing Nazis. You have no problem with over 250,000 people dying. Cancelling Thansgiving for 1 year will not hurt anyone ande may save lives.

250000 people were going to die anyway, if not of Covid, of something else.

Death is no reason to circumvent the constitution.

 

[WEATHER53]

How come no one dies from regular flu anymore?

 

[pknopp]

What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law

What we have are godless libs in positions of power who hate Christians and practicing religious Jews

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. You are a piece of shit that thinks that anyone who disagrees with you is godless. Protecting people's lives is more important. Jesus said to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. You honor God by living your life by God's word. Going to church does not show any commitment to God.

How can he be clueless when you do not know what happened.

Cuomo and NY State played politics.with this and at the last moment attempted to withdraw their case
because they knew all along that they were beat. The SCOTUS would not allow them to withdraw their
case. They forced them to defend their poistion to allow the Court to set precedent. None of this was only about religion
it was about the equal protection clause. Quite simply Governors cannot pick winners. You order one place close
then all places close. You close a movie theater then you close a Grocery Store. You close a gym, then you close a drug
store.

This virus has a group of people that are at a very high risk of death. The obligation is to protect those people by
explaining the risks to them. From that point the choice is theirs.

Dems were caught playing politics and SCOTUS has now announced that they are not going to allow games to be
played with the constitution. Nobody is ordering you to leave your home. If you wish to remain at home, lying under the
bed in the fetal position, then do it, nobody is stopping you. At the same, nobody is gonna tell me when I can leave my
home. Nobody can tell me who I can invite to my house. In this country nobody has that right.

If I go to a grocery store and they have a sign that I must wear a mask...that is a private business, and I must adhere
to their rules if I need to enter their establishment. If I am not wearing a mask walking down the street, then keep
away from me and do not engage in conversation with me. America is a land of choices and we all get to establish
our own choices.

Republicans have done the same things.

So what

Just pointing out the blind partisanship of your post.

 

[DJT for Life]

What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law

What we have are godless libs in positions of power who hate Christians and practicing religious Jews

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. You are a piece of shit that thinks that anyone who disagrees with you is godless. Protecting people's lives is more important. Jesus said to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. You honor God by living your life by God's word. Going to church does not show any commitment to God.

How can he be clueless when you do not know what happened.

Cuomo and NY State played politics.with this and at the last moment attempted to withdraw their case
because they knew all along that they were beat. The SCOTUS would not allow them to withdraw their
case. They forced them to defend their poistion to allow the Court to set precedent. None of this was only about religion
it was about the equal protection clause. Quite simply Governors cannot pick winners. You order one place close
then all places close. You close a movie theater then you close a Grocery Store. You close a gym, then you close a drug
store.

This virus has a group of people that are at a very high risk of death. The obligation is to protect those people by
explaining the risks to them. From that point the choice is theirs.

Dems were caught playing politics and SCOTUS has now announced that they are not going to allow games to be
played with the constitution. Nobody is ordering you to leave your home. If you wish to remain at home, lying under the
bed in the fetal position, then do it, nobody is stopping you. At the same, nobody is gonna tell me when I can leave my
home. Nobody can tell me who I can invite to my house. In this country nobody has that right.

If I go to a grocery store and they have a sign that I must wear a mask...that is a private business, and I must adhere
to their rules if I need to enter their establishment. If I am not wearing a mask walking down the street, then keep
away from me and do not engage in conversation with me. America is a land of choices and we all get to establish
our own choices.

Republicans have done the same things.

So what

Just pointing out the blind partisanship of your post.

Good for you. But everything I typed is valid. Everything I typed is correct. I understand your need, from an ego
point of view, to try and save your argument with catchy phrases, such as {blind partisanship" As long as I have
typed the truth supported by facts...it doesn't matter what the hell I am.

 

[pknopp]

What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law

What we have are godless libs in positions of power who hate Christians and practicing religious Jews

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. You are a piece of shit that thinks that anyone who disagrees with you is godless. Protecting people's lives is more important. Jesus said to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. You honor God by living your life by God's word. Going to church does not show any commitment to God.

How can he be clueless when you do not know what happened.

Cuomo and NY State played politics.with this and at the last moment attempted to withdraw their case
because they knew all along that they were beat. The SCOTUS would not allow them to withdraw their
case. They forced them to defend their poistion to allow the Court to set precedent. None of this was only about religion
it was about the equal protection clause. Quite simply Governors cannot pick winners. You order one place close
then all places close. You close a movie theater then you close a Grocery Store. You close a gym, then you close a drug
store.

This virus has a group of people that are at a very high risk of death. The obligation is to protect those people by
explaining the risks to them. From that point the choice is theirs.

Dems were caught playing politics and SCOTUS has now announced that they are not going to allow games to be
played with the constitution. Nobody is ordering you to leave your home. If you wish to remain at home, lying under the
bed in the fetal position, then do it, nobody is stopping you. At the same, nobody is gonna tell me when I can leave my
home. Nobody can tell me who I can invite to my house. In this country nobody has that right.

If I go to a grocery store and they have a sign that I must wear a mask...that is a private business, and I must adhere
to their rules if I need to enter their establishment. If I am not wearing a mask walking down the street, then keep
away from me and do not engage in conversation with me. America is a land of choices and we all get to establish
our own choices.

Republicans have done the same things.

So what

Just pointing out the blind partisanship of your post.

Good for you. But everything I typed is valid. Everything I typed is correct. I understand your need, from an ego
point of view, to try and save your argument with catchy phrases, such as {blind partisanship" As long as I have
typed the truth supported by facts...it doesn't matter what the hell I am.

Everything you typed is correct..........from both parties.

 

[Mac-7]

Republicans have done the same things.

But unlike you we dont blindly defend them

there are more baby hitlers on the democrat side because more of them are in charge of the big blue cities