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

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
24,666
Reaction score
5,544
Points
215
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.
They can but what he did is very common in the courts. As I said, I disagree with this line of thinking in the courts but what he did was hardly controversial.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
117,829
Reaction score
31,586
Points
2,220
The Constitution deals with the federal government.

So what NYC does as far as building capacity is concerned does not violate the First Amendment.
Wow.

Did Obama teach you law?
Building capacity laws are a matter for the state since they are not mentioned in the Constitution.
So are zoning codes, but so what. There's no prohibition in the Constitution against zoning codes
So then you shouldn't have any problem with the state determining what are the allowable capacities for buildings.
Not when it comes to religious institutions
 

Crepitus

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
42,511
Reaction score
9,618
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?
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?
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
32,434
Reaction score
17,443
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.
OH? how did that come about?
Because lefties hate Christians and practicing Jews.
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
32,434
Reaction score
17,443
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.
Where does cuomo try to murder people at other gatherings?
By allowing them to gather. At least, according to your logic.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
117,829
Reaction score
31,586
Points
2,220
The Constitution deals with the federal government.

So what NYC does as far as building capacity is concerned does not violate the First Amendment.
Wow.

Did Obama teach you law?
Building capacity laws are a matter for the state since they are not mentioned in the Constitution.
So are zoning codes, but so what. There's no prohibition in the Constitution against zoning codes
So then you shouldn't have any problem with the state determining what are the allowable capacities for buildings.
So the Governor can limit occupancy at the NY Times Headquarters to 10 people for all eternity?
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
20,691
Reaction score
16,060
Points
2,415
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
Bring links with some numbers. Keep in mind both of those states have been "hot spots" since this started.
 

BluesLegend

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
50,779
Reaction score
17,496
Points
2,630
Location
Trump's Army
What we have are godless libs in positions of power who hate Christians and practicing religious Jews
Fortunately the Trump SCOTUS just bitch slapped liberals into next week. Also love that chief justice Roberts the CINO finally got his the turncoat.
 

DukeU

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
1,773
Reaction score
1,806
Points
1,928
Just as President Obama said, these troglodytes will bitterly cling to their "sky daddy" like snowflakes rather than use theri brains. Religion is one of the silly old traditions of mankind that we need to eradicate if we are ever going to find have true progress.
So you join Obama in his bigotry and intolerance. Nice.
 

irosie91

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
72,599
Reaction score
7,316
Points
1,830
not funny, nightie-baby. Public Health is a "THING" ----
Constitutional rights are a “THING” too.
people have a constitutional right to resist quarantine rules and spread disease?---
since when? I is old----WAY back when I was young---persons with ACTIVE
TUBERCULOSIS were----in some cases ---- FORCIBLY confined to hospitals.
Back then children were still dying of MILIARY TB-----and-----the area in which
I saw this phenomenon------was predominantly black-----GOOD NEWS---
nobody seemed to be stupid enough to attribute it to RACISM. (even better---
yellow fever ain't a thing no more------almost........----nor is polio ALMOST .........
 

Eric Arthur Blair

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
19,164
Reaction score
9,579
Points
950
What we have is a Christian Taliban who put churches above the law.[/QUOTE[ Not the First Amendment.
None of this is true. Clearly they are legislatting from the bench.
Au contraire, simpleton.
Protecting the First Amendment against the capricious dictates of power mad governors is
not dictating from the bench. It is the very best use of our courts keeping tyrants at bay.
Cuomo, Newsom, Brown, Inslee, etc. have all used a health emergency to simply cancel out our most basic Constitutional protections.
It's telling that bugs you. Too effin' bad!
The Constitution does recognize emergencies and as it does when it allows a President to suspend habeas corpus.
Governors like Cuomo won't even attempt to put any restrictions at all on a BLM march as their super spreader
crowds move throughout a city at will. So they pick on churches, skateboarders, surfers, etc. as bullies will do
finding the target of least restriction and coming down on them because they don't have the guts to take
on BLM or Antifa.
 
Last edited:

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
24,666
Reaction score
5,544
Points
215

irosie91

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
72,599
Reaction score
7,316
Points
1,830
faulty ruling-----if it is really true that religious gathering SPREAD the virus

Doesn't make a difference. The state isn't supposed to regulate religion.
wrong, prince pierogi-----the STATE STILL DOES NOT REGULATE religion---it
regulates public health
And the court ruled it must be done equally and fairly.
ok----that's the part I missed------what was UNFAIR about
it?
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
24,666
Reaction score
5,544
Points
215
faulty ruling-----if it is really true that religious gathering SPREAD the virus

Doesn't make a difference. The state isn't supposed to regulate religion.
wrong, prince pierogi-----the STATE STILL DOES NOT REGULATE religion---it
regulates public health
And the court ruled it must be done equally and fairly.
ok----that's the part I missed------what was UNFAIR about
it?
Read the other thread. There is already a long discussion on this.
 

22lcidw

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
16,764
Reaction score
5,305
Points
345
faulty ruling-----if it is really true that religious gathering SPREAD the virus
Antifa and BLM ended any discussion. The Prog politicians did nothing to stop their protests/riots.
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
48,223
Reaction score
9,303
Points
2,070
Location
PNW
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 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.
What we have is the court enforcing the Constitution where it has been violated. To allow “essential” businesses to set their crowd capacity, yet a religious group is told they are extremely limited. The church that brought forth the suit showed that during this pandemic they have been very responsible and ahead of the curve in procedures. Also, the state could not supply evidence that there was any spreading of the disease from the church. The church isn’t enforcing any new laws, the church is making people go to church, your use of the word “Taliban” is to evoke your emotions into the discussion which has nothing to do with fact.

The state, not the church is trying to force an unconstitutional law that the courts and most reasonable people would see as a violation of the Constitution. I am happy for our freedoms today.
 

Polishprince

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
27,133
Reaction score
13,056
Points
1,100
faulty ruling-----if it is really true that religious gathering SPREAD the virus

Doesn't make a difference. The state isn't supposed to regulate religion.
wrong, prince pierogi-----the STATE STILL DOES NOT REGULATE religion---it
regulates public health

It isn't about public health at all, its about controlling religion.

Otherwise, Strip Clubs wouldn't be open and neither would Abortion Mills.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top