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

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
20,624
Reaction score
15,981
Points
2,415

skews13

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
2,165
Points
1,065
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.
The Governor of New York is not Congress, and no law was passed by the state legislature. Once again your ignorance shines through.

Just as with everything else Constitution, you miss the point entirely.
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
20,624
Reaction score
15,981
Points
2,415
The Constitution deals with the federal government.

So what NYC does as far as building capacity is concerned does not violate the First Amendment.
No. The Constitution also deals with state governments also. An unconstitutional law is unconstitutional whether it's a federal or state law. State laws are overturned all the time.
The laws on building capacity are not unconstitutional.
No. Unfairly enforcing them are.
I already agreed with you on that.

The law itself is not unconstitutional
It isn't a law. Cuomo issued an edict. He has no power to write law.
 

Crepitus

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
42,410
Reaction score
9,561
Points
2,040
ACB made the difference. Of course turn coat Roberts sided with the socialists.



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?
 

irosie91

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
72,597
Reaction score
7,313
Points
1,830
faulty ruling-----if it is really true that religious gathering SPREAD the virus
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
20,624
Reaction score
15,981
Points
2,415
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.
People are still free to practice their religion just not in huge crowds.
25% or 10 people. Rules that are not in place for a place of business. If you can spread it at church, you can spread it at work.
Fair point.

The building capacity laws should be equal.
WHich is what this was ruled on.
Then it's not a first amendment issue
Whether you understand it or not, it is. But in the end it's irrelevant. It's unconstitutional however you want to argue it.
Show me precedent where building capacity limits have been deemed unconstitutional. Not the unfair enforcement but the laws themselves.
This ruling deemed this one unconstitutional.
 

Crepitus

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
42,410
Reaction score
9,561
Points
2,040
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.”


AMY!
Why do they want to murder religious people?
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
20,624
Reaction score
15,981
Points
2,415
At a time COVID is raging and we are looking at 2000 deaths a day, the Trump Court sells out America to pander to the religious right.
The Court's duty is rule on the Constitutionality of things brought before them, not worry about snowflakes hiding under their beds with a binky.
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
20,624
Reaction score
15,981
Points
2,415
At a time COVID is raging and we are looking at 2000 deaths a day, the Trump Court sells out America to pander to the religious right.
There is no pandering, this is a Constitutional issue. The forefathers realized that people not only needed to healthy physically but also mentally and spiritually.

This church has been well ahead of the curve when it has come to Covid-19 and currently had no cases stemming from the church. So no one is “selling out”, they are being reasonable and are using the Constitution to guide them. Religious freedom is a basic right in our country.
Protecting the health and well being of the people is well within the realm of the Constitution.

People are free to exercise their religion without gathering in Spreader Events.
The Trump Court should know the difference
There is no such prevision in the Constitution. And when did the church in question have a "Spreader Event", Buttercup?
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
20,624
Reaction score
15,981
Points
2,415
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.”


AMY!
What is truly frightening about this is that the decision was 5-4.

This should have been unanimous.
Yep. Roberts has turned out to be a joke.
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
20,624
Reaction score
15,981
Points
2,415
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.
You are free to cancel your Thanksgiving. Nobody stopping you. But you have no authority to cancel mine, Cupcake.
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
20,624
Reaction score
15,981
Points
2,415
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.........
Churches and businesses are 2 different things. The government is not preventing anyone from following their religious faith. Today's technology allows us to do both. Churches have been super spreaders you moron.
The govt doesn't have the authority to dictate how one worships.
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
32,417
Reaction score
17,400
Points
1,905
Location
Arizona
ACB made the difference. Of course turn coat Roberts sided with the socialists.



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.
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
20,624
Reaction score
15,981
Points
2,415
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.
The First Amendment couldn't be any clearer on this matter. In America, government has no business whatsoever closing down places of worship.
In other words churches are above the law. That is not what the 1st Amendment says.
What law? This was an edict by lil Adolf Cuomo.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
217,214
Reaction score
43,435
Points
2,190
There is no such prevision in the Constitution. And when did the church in question have a "Spreader Event", Buttercup?
In Brooklyn and right here in NJ where Orthodox Jews ignore COVID restrictions and still congregate.

They are hot spots in both states.

But the Trump Court says ignore it
 

irosie91

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
72,597
Reaction score
7,313
Points
1,830
not funny, nightie-baby. Public Health is a "THING" ----
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
32,417
Reaction score
17,400
Points
1,905
Location
Arizona
Roberts ruled that because these particular rules are no longer in place the courts had no standing to over turn them. It's common for courts to rule that one not harmed can not bring a lawsuit. I disagree with that line of thinking but it's pretty common.

He stated that he might vote to overturn a current rule that was in place.

P.S. and the mods should move this to the thread already started.
Roberts is an idiot. The rules can be imposed again at any time.
 

irosie91

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
72,597
Reaction score
7,313
Points
1,830
ACB made the difference. Of course turn coat Roberts sided with the socialists.



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.
OH? how did that come about?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top