Supreme Court Says Church Bans UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

[Cecilie1200]

Unfortunate result when rule by the court is done from a religious and political perspective instead of ceding to the science and public health.
Common sense...out the window we go!

Fake News. Bigotry disguised as science remains bigotry.

Tyranny reversed: California judge slaps down Newsom over religious-worship shutdowns

“Why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but not a pew?”

Just how huge a precedent will the recent Supreme Court decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn turn out to be? We can take one measure from a California court late yesterday in Father Trevor Burfitt v Gavin Newsom. In a stinging rebuke to Gov. Adolf Newsom, Judge Gregory Pulskamp imposed an injunction against enforcement of California’s planned COVID-19 restrictions. Using Brooklyn as a guide, Pulskamp ripped California’s arbitrary decision to shut down houses of worship while allowing commercial businesses to remain open.

As we all know, any such limitation on an explicit and textual constitutional right requires a strict scrutiny standard, Pulskamp cited Brooklyn for support. But Pulskamp wonders whether the restrictions even pass a smell test. In fact, Newsom’s order for a blanket ban on worship services was even harsher than Andrew Cuomo’s orders that prompted the Brooklyn decision, Pulskamp notes:

However, Defendants’ efforts to distinguish the permitted secular activity from the prohibited religious activity are not persuasive. For example, Defendants contend that the congregations of shoppers in big-box stores, grocery stores, etc., are not comparable to religious services in terms of crowd size, proximity, and length of stay. To the contrary, based on the evidence presented (or lack thereof) and common knowledge, it appears that shoppers at a Costco, Walmart, Home Depot, etc. may – and frequently do – congregate in numbers, proximity, and duration that is very comparable to worshippers in houses of worship.

Similar Exposure

Defendants have not convincingly established that the health risks associated with houses of worship would be any different than “essential businesses” or “critical infrastructure,” assuming the same requirements of social distancing and the wearing of masks were applied across the board. …

False Distinctions

In addition, the restrictions at issue in this case are not “narrowly tailored” because the occupancy limits imposed on places of worship by the Purple Tier of the Blueprint for a Safer Economy and the Regional Stay at Home Order are zero – a total and complete ban of indoor religious services. These restrictions are arguably harsher than any other set of restrictions considered by the courts in all of the cases cited by the parties in this action.

Newsome Worse Than Cuomo

In Roman Catholic Diocese, the court considered New York’s religious services occupancy limits of 10 persons in “Red Zones” and 25 persons in “orange zones” to be “very severe restrictions” and “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.” (Roman Catholic Diocese, supra, at p. 1, 2.)

They view the Religious as Second Class and used COVID to ban religious gatherings.

What then should the courts think of California’s total ban on indoor services? “Narrowly tailored” regulations mean “the least restrictive means available” and may potentially include a variety of less draconian measures such as “social distancing, wearing masks, leaving doors and windows open, forgoing singing, and disinfecting spaces between services.” (Roman Catholic Diocese, supra, at p. 4 (conc. opn. of Gorsuch, J.).) Therefore, it seems highly probable that Plaintiffs will prevail in this case should the matter proceed to trial.

Pulskamp quotes Good Justice Brett Kavanaugh from a dissent in the earlier South Bay United case, one of the precursors to Brooklyn, in pointing out the absurdity of the disparate treatment of religious houses:

“Assuming all of the same precautions are taken, why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but not a pew? And why can someone safely interact with a brave deliverywoman but not with a stoic minister? … The State cannot ‘assume the worst when people go to worship but assume the best when people go to work or go about the rest of their daily lives in permitted social settings.'”

In other words, this shows a demonstrable hostility to religious expression, which is on its face unconstitutional — and was at the time of South Bay United, for that matter. The Supreme Court chose at that time to defer to governors but finally drew a line in the sand with Brooklyn. And now that judges have seen the line drawn, they can clearly and justly deal with abusive and arbitrary examples of tyrannical rule-by-whim, such as Adolf Newsom’s order in California.

Mark Tapscott reports on the reaction from Thomas More Society counsel Chris Ferrara, who called this decision a vindication of religious liberty rights:

Thomas More Senior Counsel Chris Ferrara lauded the decision, saying, “after more than nine months of tyranny in the name of ‘containing the spread’ of a virus they have failed to contain, the gubernatorial dictators presiding over draconian lockdowns are running out of runway on their claim that churches are somehow more dangerous viral vectors than any of the litany of ‘essential businesses’ crowded with customers that they allow to operate at 100% capacity.

And End To "Progressive" Anti-Religious Tyranny under the guise of "Public Health"

“The Supreme Court’s decision in Brooklyn Diocese v. Cuomo has opened the way to the liberation of churches from the absurd and bigoted superstition that they are veritable death chambers threatening the entire population.

These Totalitarians Are Hateful Scum

“Not even hair salons, which by the services offered necessitate close personal contact, have been subjected to the onerous and barefaced biases heaped upon houses of worship.”

It’s important to note that this does not spell the end of the case in Burfitt. This just enjoins California from enforcing its current restrictions while the case continues. Perhaps Newsom will rethink his approach before this comes back before Pulskamp … but then again, one might have thought Newsom would have done so after Brooklyn, too. The tyrannical impulse dies hard.

You don't have to go to church to worship. If there really is a Jesus like the one in the bible I doubt that he would want people to risk their lives and the lives of others by going to church.

The part you're not understanding about freedom of religious exercise is that no one gives a shit what you think they "have to do" or what you think "Jesus would want." No one HAS to give a shit, because YOU don't get a vote. Hence the word "freedom".

So I'll tell you what, Pope jasonnfree: you practice your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, however you think they require, and you mind your own fucking business about how other people practice theirs. Try withholding your edicts on what is and isn't needed until someone asks you.

You don't have to blather nonsense to be a leftist. It just seems to be the most common choice.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Liberals don't attend church!

True.

But they do burn them......and that's hard to do without at least visiting. So they DO attend church - just not church services.

I don't think you can consider standing outside and throwing Molotov cocktails through the windows to be "visiting".

 

[Zorro!]

Unfortunate result when rule by the court is done from a religious and political perspective instead of ceding to the science and public health.
Common sense...out the window we go!

Fake News. Bigotry disguised as science remains bigotry.

Tyranny reversed: California judge slaps down Newsom over religious-worship shutdowns

“Why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but not a pew?”

Just how huge a precedent will the recent Supreme Court decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn turn out to be? We can take one measure from a California court late yesterday in Father Trevor Burfitt v Gavin Newsom. In a stinging rebuke to Gov. Adolf Newsom, Judge Gregory Pulskamp imposed an injunction against enforcement of California’s planned COVID-19 restrictions. Using Brooklyn as a guide, Pulskamp ripped California’s arbitrary decision to shut down houses of worship while allowing commercial businesses to remain open.

As we all know, any such limitation on an explicit and textual constitutional right requires a strict scrutiny standard, Pulskamp cited Brooklyn for support. But Pulskamp wonders whether the restrictions even pass a smell test. In fact, Newsom’s order for a blanket ban on worship services was even harsher than Andrew Cuomo’s orders that prompted the Brooklyn decision, Pulskamp notes:

However, Defendants’ efforts to distinguish the permitted secular activity from the prohibited religious activity are not persuasive. For example, Defendants contend that the congregations of shoppers in big-box stores, grocery stores, etc., are not comparable to religious services in terms of crowd size, proximity, and length of stay. To the contrary, based on the evidence presented (or lack thereof) and common knowledge, it appears that shoppers at a Costco, Walmart, Home Depot, etc. may – and frequently do – congregate in numbers, proximity, and duration that is very comparable to worshippers in houses of worship.

Similar Exposure

Defendants have not convincingly established that the health risks associated with houses of worship would be any different than “essential businesses” or “critical infrastructure,” assuming the same requirements of social distancing and the wearing of masks were applied across the board. …

False Distinctions

In addition, the restrictions at issue in this case are not “narrowly tailored” because the occupancy limits imposed on places of worship by the Purple Tier of the Blueprint for a Safer Economy and the Regional Stay at Home Order are zero – a total and complete ban of indoor religious services. These restrictions are arguably harsher than any other set of restrictions considered by the courts in all of the cases cited by the parties in this action.

Newsome Worse Than Cuomo

In Roman Catholic Diocese, the court considered New York’s religious services occupancy limits of 10 persons in “Red Zones” and 25 persons in “orange zones” to be “very severe restrictions” and “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.” (Roman Catholic Diocese, supra, at p. 1, 2.)

They view the Religious as Second Class and used COVID to ban religious gatherings.

What then should the courts think of California’s total ban on indoor services? “Narrowly tailored” regulations mean “the least restrictive means available” and may potentially include a variety of less draconian measures such as “social distancing, wearing masks, leaving doors and windows open, forgoing singing, and disinfecting spaces between services.” (Roman Catholic Diocese, supra, at p. 4 (conc. opn. of Gorsuch, J.).) Therefore, it seems highly probable that Plaintiffs will prevail in this case should the matter proceed to trial.

Pulskamp quotes Good Justice Brett Kavanaugh from a dissent in the earlier South Bay United case, one of the precursors to Brooklyn, in pointing out the absurdity of the disparate treatment of religious houses:

“Assuming all of the same precautions are taken, why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but not a pew? And why can someone safely interact with a brave deliverywoman but not with a stoic minister? … The State cannot ‘assume the worst when people go to worship but assume the best when people go to work or go about the rest of their daily lives in permitted social settings.'”

In other words, this shows a demonstrable hostility to religious expression, which is on its face unconstitutional — and was at the time of South Bay United, for that matter. The Supreme Court chose at that time to defer to governors but finally drew a line in the sand with Brooklyn. And now that judges have seen the line drawn, they can clearly and justly deal with abusive and arbitrary examples of tyrannical rule-by-whim, such as Adolf Newsom’s order in California.

Mark Tapscott reports on the reaction from Thomas More Society counsel Chris Ferrara, who called this decision a vindication of religious liberty rights:

Thomas More Senior Counsel Chris Ferrara lauded the decision, saying, “after more than nine months of tyranny in the name of ‘containing the spread’ of a virus they have failed to contain, the gubernatorial dictators presiding over draconian lockdowns are running out of runway on their claim that churches are somehow more dangerous viral vectors than any of the litany of ‘essential businesses’ crowded with customers that they allow to operate at 100% capacity.

And End To "Progressive" Anti-Religious Tyranny under the guise of "Public Health"

“The Supreme Court’s decision in Brooklyn Diocese v. Cuomo has opened the way to the liberation of churches from the absurd and bigoted superstition that they are veritable death chambers threatening the entire population.

These Totalitarians Are Hateful Scum

“Not even hair salons, which by the services offered necessitate close personal contact, have been subjected to the onerous and barefaced biases heaped upon houses of worship.”

It’s important to note that this does not spell the end of the case in Burfitt. This just enjoins California from enforcing its current restrictions while the case continues. Perhaps Newsom will rethink his approach before this comes back before Pulskamp … but then again, one might have thought Newsom would have done so after Brooklyn, too. The tyrannical impulse dies hard.

You don't have to go to church to worship. If there really is a Jesus like the one in the bible I doubt that he would want people to risk their lives and the lives of others by going to church.

That's the thing about Freedom, it's not up to you or the government, how worship takes place.

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion; or abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble...​

​

The government can issue a lot of regulations about a number of things, be satisfied with that and understand that this is an area where regulation is prohibited.

 

[hadit]

The High Court granted a petition from Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena that sought to overturn a lower court’s ruling in favor of Newsom’s restrictions.

The lower court judges should be removed from office for incompetence

LOL
A lot of those judges were appointed by Trump.


In election cases, Trump-appointed judges rule against Trump ...
www.abajournal.com › news › article › trump-appointe...
3 days ago — In election cases, Trump-appointed judges rule against Trump and allies, ... and his requests for relief concerning the 2020 election were moot ...
Trump Is Being Laughed Out of Court by His Own Judicial ...
www.vanityfair.com › news › 2020/12 › trump-being-l...
5 days ago — Another appeals court judge appointed by Trump ruled against his ... Georgia was one of five battleground states serving up losses to the ...
U.S. judiciary, shaped by Trump, thwarts his election ... - Reuters
www.reuters.com › article › us-usa-election-trump-judges
Dec 1, 2020 — An appeals court judge appointed by Trump, a Republican, on Friday ruled against his campaign's effort to overturn President-elect Joe Biden's ...

Guess he really did appoint quality judges then, huh?

 

[Mac-7]

Guess he really did appoint quality judges then, huh?

I was thinking of what I would say to georgia voters if I were campaigning for the two republicans

they are both borderline never trumpers so it cant be a reward for their loyal service

but they did lend two votes for making mitch maconnell senate majority leader where he accomplished - practically nothing for trump voters

except confirm conservative judges who turned their back on trump voters when we really needed them

so I guess all I can say is vote for the repubs because the democrats are worse

and they really are

as bad as things are now a democrat run senate will be much worse

but thats not very much to keep the spirits up

 

[Zorro!]

Guess he really did appoint quality judges then, huh?

I was thinking of what I would say to georgia voters if I were campaigning for the two republicans

they are both borderline never trumpers so it cant be a reward for their loyal service

but they did lend two votes for making mitch maconnell senate majority leader where he accomplished - practically nothing for trump voters...

Fake News. Trump/McConnell completely reformed the judiciary returning it to it's constitutional moorings.

... except confirm conservative judges who turned their back on trump voters when we really needed them...

Constitutional judges follow the Constitution and the Law, they do not twist themselves into pretzels to reach a particular political outcome. Depending on how well the Conservative position complies with the Constitution and the Text, this absolutely can cut against conservatives, which we accept. Further, Constitutionalist judges stay in their lane, that is they do not exceed their authority, that is, what you are calling "not rendering conservative positions" is often simply a case of the Court saying this is not a question for the Court, this is a question for the elected branches to settle, which, when that is the case, is the right decision.

... so I guess all I can say is vote for the repubs because the democrats are worse and they really are as bad as things are now a democrat run senate will be much worse but thats not very much to keep the spirits up...

Be of good cheer, even if they win both seats, McConnell will retain veto power as Manchin, who really should switch parties if he wants an easy re-election in his deep red state, has already said that he will not be the 50th vote for any of the Dems wild schemes like adding fake states to gerrymander the US Senate, or destroying the Supreme Court by stacking it with additional judges or even ending the filibuster.

And of course these GA runoffs are important, Warnock is a hair on fire America hating nut burger.

 

[Mac-7]

Constitutional judges follow the Constitution and the Law, they do not twist themselves into pretzels to reach a particular political outcome.

Yes and no

the Constitution means whatever 5 demigods in black robes say it means

if libs ever take control of the court you will see what I mean

 

[Zorro!]

Constitutional judges follow the Constitution and the Law, they do not twist themselves into pretzels to reach a particular political outcome.

Yes and no

the Constitution means whatever 5 demigods in black robes say it means

if libs ever take control of the court you will see what I mean

Libs controlled the Court for more than 50 years, so I'm perfectly clear on what it means to live under a Liberal Court. I'm looking forward to a Conservative Court that leaves the Legislating to Legislators.

 

[Mac-7]

I'm looking forward to a Conservative Court that leaves the Legislating to Legislators.

I hope they are conservatives

but we are not off to a great start so far

 

[beagle9]

Unfortunate result when rule by the court is done from a religious and political perspective instead of ceding to the science and public health.
Common sense...out the window we go!

Fake News. Bigotry disguised as science remains bigotry.

Tyranny reversed: California judge slaps down Newsom over religious-worship shutdowns

“Why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but not a pew?”

Just how huge a precedent will the recent Supreme Court decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn turn out to be? We can take one measure from a California court late yesterday in Father Trevor Burfitt v Gavin Newsom. In a stinging rebuke to Gov. Adolf Newsom, Judge Gregory Pulskamp imposed an injunction against enforcement of California’s planned COVID-19 restrictions. Using Brooklyn as a guide, Pulskamp ripped California’s arbitrary decision to shut down houses of worship while allowing commercial businesses to remain open.

As we all know, any such limitation on an explicit and textual constitutional right requires a strict scrutiny standard, Pulskamp cited Brooklyn for support. But Pulskamp wonders whether the restrictions even pass a smell test. In fact, Newsom’s order for a blanket ban on worship services was even harsher than Andrew Cuomo’s orders that prompted the Brooklyn decision, Pulskamp notes:

However, Defendants’ efforts to distinguish the permitted secular activity from the prohibited religious activity are not persuasive. For example, Defendants contend that the congregations of shoppers in big-box stores, grocery stores, etc., are not comparable to religious services in terms of crowd size, proximity, and length of stay. To the contrary, based on the evidence presented (or lack thereof) and common knowledge, it appears that shoppers at a Costco, Walmart, Home Depot, etc. may – and frequently do – congregate in numbers, proximity, and duration that is very comparable to worshippers in houses of worship.

Similar Exposure

Defendants have not convincingly established that the health risks associated with houses of worship would be any different than “essential businesses” or “critical infrastructure,” assuming the same requirements of social distancing and the wearing of masks were applied across the board. …

False Distinctions

In addition, the restrictions at issue in this case are not “narrowly tailored” because the occupancy limits imposed on places of worship by the Purple Tier of the Blueprint for a Safer Economy and the Regional Stay at Home Order are zero – a total and complete ban of indoor religious services. These restrictions are arguably harsher than any other set of restrictions considered by the courts in all of the cases cited by the parties in this action.

Newsome Worse Than Cuomo

In Roman Catholic Diocese, the court considered New York’s religious services occupancy limits of 10 persons in “Red Zones” and 25 persons in “orange zones” to be “very severe restrictions” and “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.” (Roman Catholic Diocese, supra, at p. 1, 2.)

They view the Religious as Second Class and used COVID to ban religious gatherings.

What then should the courts think of California’s total ban on indoor services? “Narrowly tailored” regulations mean “the least restrictive means available” and may potentially include a variety of less draconian measures such as “social distancing, wearing masks, leaving doors and windows open, forgoing singing, and disinfecting spaces between services.” (Roman Catholic Diocese, supra, at p. 4 (conc. opn. of Gorsuch, J.).) Therefore, it seems highly probable that Plaintiffs will prevail in this case should the matter proceed to trial.

Pulskamp quotes Good Justice Brett Kavanaugh from a dissent in the earlier South Bay United case, one of the precursors to Brooklyn, in pointing out the absurdity of the disparate treatment of religious houses:

“Assuming all of the same precautions are taken, why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but not a pew? And why can someone safely interact with a brave deliverywoman but not with a stoic minister? … The State cannot ‘assume the worst when people go to worship but assume the best when people go to work or go about the rest of their daily lives in permitted social settings.'”

In other words, this shows a demonstrable hostility to religious expression, which is on its face unconstitutional — and was at the time of South Bay United, for that matter. The Supreme Court chose at that time to defer to governors but finally drew a line in the sand with Brooklyn. And now that judges have seen the line drawn, they can clearly and justly deal with abusive and arbitrary examples of tyrannical rule-by-whim, such as Adolf Newsom’s order in California.

Mark Tapscott reports on the reaction from Thomas More Society counsel Chris Ferrara, who called this decision a vindication of religious liberty rights:

Thomas More Senior Counsel Chris Ferrara lauded the decision, saying, “after more than nine months of tyranny in the name of ‘containing the spread’ of a virus they have failed to contain, the gubernatorial dictators presiding over draconian lockdowns are running out of runway on their claim that churches are somehow more dangerous viral vectors than any of the litany of ‘essential businesses’ crowded with customers that they allow to operate at 100% capacity.

And End To "Progressive" Anti-Religious Tyranny under the guise of "Public Health"

“The Supreme Court’s decision in Brooklyn Diocese v. Cuomo has opened the way to the liberation of churches from the absurd and bigoted superstition that they are veritable death chambers threatening the entire population.

These Totalitarians Are Hateful Scum

“Not even hair salons, which by the services offered necessitate close personal contact, have been subjected to the onerous and barefaced biases heaped upon houses of worship.”

It’s important to note that this does not spell the end of the case in Burfitt. This just enjoins California from enforcing its current restrictions while the case continues. Perhaps Newsom will rethink his approach before this comes back before Pulskamp … but then again, one might have thought Newsom would have done so after Brooklyn, too. The tyrannical impulse dies hard.

You don't have to go to church to worship. If there really is a Jesus like the one in the bible I doubt that he would want people to risk their lives and the lives of others by going to church.

The part you're not understanding about freedom of religious exercise is that no one gives a shit what you think they "have to do" or what you think "Jesus would want." No one HAS to give a shit, because YOU don't get a vote. Hence the word "freedom".

So I'll tell you what, Pope jasonnfree: you practice your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, however you think they require, and you mind your own fucking business about how other people practice theirs. Try withholding your edicts on what is and isn't needed until someone asks you.

You don't have to blather nonsense to be a leftist. It just seems to be the most common choice.

Well stated in an uhhh ummm rudimentary way... LOL

 

[beagle9]

Constitutional judges follow the Constitution and the Law, they do not twist themselves into pretzels to reach a particular political outcome.

Yes and no

the Constitution means whatever 5 demigods in black robes say it means

if libs ever take control of the court you will see what I mean

Yes and no, because hopefully the people will be the ultimate decider whether or not the courts have gone rogue or not. If they've gone rogue, then a rebellious revolution will come next, so if there ever was a time to be extremely watchful of the times in which we all live, then it's definitely now.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Unfortunate result when rule by the court is done from a religious and political perspective instead of ceding to the science and public health.
Common sense...out the window we go!

Fake News. Bigotry disguised as science remains bigotry.

Tyranny reversed: California judge slaps down Newsom over religious-worship shutdowns

“Why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but not a pew?”

Just how huge a precedent will the recent Supreme Court decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn turn out to be? We can take one measure from a California court late yesterday in Father Trevor Burfitt v Gavin Newsom. In a stinging rebuke to Gov. Adolf Newsom, Judge Gregory Pulskamp imposed an injunction against enforcement of California’s planned COVID-19 restrictions. Using Brooklyn as a guide, Pulskamp ripped California’s arbitrary decision to shut down houses of worship while allowing commercial businesses to remain open.

As we all know, any such limitation on an explicit and textual constitutional right requires a strict scrutiny standard, Pulskamp cited Brooklyn for support. But Pulskamp wonders whether the restrictions even pass a smell test. In fact, Newsom’s order for a blanket ban on worship services was even harsher than Andrew Cuomo’s orders that prompted the Brooklyn decision, Pulskamp notes:

However, Defendants’ efforts to distinguish the permitted secular activity from the prohibited religious activity are not persuasive. For example, Defendants contend that the congregations of shoppers in big-box stores, grocery stores, etc., are not comparable to religious services in terms of crowd size, proximity, and length of stay. To the contrary, based on the evidence presented (or lack thereof) and common knowledge, it appears that shoppers at a Costco, Walmart, Home Depot, etc. may – and frequently do – congregate in numbers, proximity, and duration that is very comparable to worshippers in houses of worship.

Similar Exposure

Defendants have not convincingly established that the health risks associated with houses of worship would be any different than “essential businesses” or “critical infrastructure,” assuming the same requirements of social distancing and the wearing of masks were applied across the board. …

False Distinctions

In addition, the restrictions at issue in this case are not “narrowly tailored” because the occupancy limits imposed on places of worship by the Purple Tier of the Blueprint for a Safer Economy and the Regional Stay at Home Order are zero – a total and complete ban of indoor religious services. These restrictions are arguably harsher than any other set of restrictions considered by the courts in all of the cases cited by the parties in this action.

Newsome Worse Than Cuomo

In Roman Catholic Diocese, the court considered New York’s religious services occupancy limits of 10 persons in “Red Zones” and 25 persons in “orange zones” to be “very severe restrictions” and “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.” (Roman Catholic Diocese, supra, at p. 1, 2.)

They view the Religious as Second Class and used COVID to ban religious gatherings.

What then should the courts think of California’s total ban on indoor services? “Narrowly tailored” regulations mean “the least restrictive means available” and may potentially include a variety of less draconian measures such as “social distancing, wearing masks, leaving doors and windows open, forgoing singing, and disinfecting spaces between services.” (Roman Catholic Diocese, supra, at p. 4 (conc. opn. of Gorsuch, J.).) Therefore, it seems highly probable that Plaintiffs will prevail in this case should the matter proceed to trial.

Pulskamp quotes Good Justice Brett Kavanaugh from a dissent in the earlier South Bay United case, one of the precursors to Brooklyn, in pointing out the absurdity of the disparate treatment of religious houses:

“Assuming all of the same precautions are taken, why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but not a pew? And why can someone safely interact with a brave deliverywoman but not with a stoic minister? … The State cannot ‘assume the worst when people go to worship but assume the best when people go to work or go about the rest of their daily lives in permitted social settings.'”

In other words, this shows a demonstrable hostility to religious expression, which is on its face unconstitutional — and was at the time of South Bay United, for that matter. The Supreme Court chose at that time to defer to governors but finally drew a line in the sand with Brooklyn. And now that judges have seen the line drawn, they can clearly and justly deal with abusive and arbitrary examples of tyrannical rule-by-whim, such as Adolf Newsom’s order in California.

Mark Tapscott reports on the reaction from Thomas More Society counsel Chris Ferrara, who called this decision a vindication of religious liberty rights:

Thomas More Senior Counsel Chris Ferrara lauded the decision, saying, “after more than nine months of tyranny in the name of ‘containing the spread’ of a virus they have failed to contain, the gubernatorial dictators presiding over draconian lockdowns are running out of runway on their claim that churches are somehow more dangerous viral vectors than any of the litany of ‘essential businesses’ crowded with customers that they allow to operate at 100% capacity.

And End To "Progressive" Anti-Religious Tyranny under the guise of "Public Health"

“The Supreme Court’s decision in Brooklyn Diocese v. Cuomo has opened the way to the liberation of churches from the absurd and bigoted superstition that they are veritable death chambers threatening the entire population.

These Totalitarians Are Hateful Scum

“Not even hair salons, which by the services offered necessitate close personal contact, have been subjected to the onerous and barefaced biases heaped upon houses of worship.”

It’s important to note that this does not spell the end of the case in Burfitt. This just enjoins California from enforcing its current restrictions while the case continues. Perhaps Newsom will rethink his approach before this comes back before Pulskamp … but then again, one might have thought Newsom would have done so after Brooklyn, too. The tyrannical impulse dies hard.

You don't have to go to church to worship. If there really is a Jesus like the one in the bible I doubt that he would want people to risk their lives and the lives of others by going to church.

The part you're not understanding about freedom of religious exercise is that no one gives a shit what you think they "have to do" or what you think "Jesus would want." No one HAS to give a shit, because YOU don't get a vote. Hence the word "freedom".

So I'll tell you what, Pope jasonnfree: you practice your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, however you think they require, and you mind your own fucking business about how other people practice theirs. Try withholding your edicts on what is and isn't needed until someone asks you.

You don't have to blather nonsense to be a leftist. It just seems to be the most common choice.

Well stated in an uhhh ummm rudimentary way... LOL

One has to dumb things down if one hopes to have leftists understand it.

 

[Zorro!]

Constitutional judges follow the Constitution and the Law, they do not twist themselves into pretzels to reach a particular political outcome.

Yes and no

the Constitution means whatever 5 demigods in black robes say it means

if libs ever take control of the court you will see what I mean

Yes and no, because hopefully the people will be the ultimate decider whether or not the courts have gone rogue or not. If they've gone rogue, then a rebellious revolution will come next, so if there ever was a time to be extremely watchful of the times in which we all live, then it's definitely now.

We have no need of a "Rebellious Revolution" in order to re-establish control over the Federal Government. Article V gives 2/3rds of the State Legislatures the authority to draft and circulate amendments for ratification, all with no input from the Federal Government.

Revolution would be a failure of our constitution. Why would we choose to fail rather than use this powerful tool that our Framers gave us, for just such a time as this?

Some potential Amendments:

1. Balanced Budget
2. Ability of a State Legislature to recall their Senator on a majority vote.
3. Ability of a majority of the State Legislatures, by passing the identical bill, to put it on the President's desk for signature.
4. Implement 12 year term limits on Judges as well as Judicial filibuster, and guarantee every judicial nomination an up and down vote in the US Senate.
5. 12 year term limits for House and Senate.

Those right there would do a great deal to bring the Federal Government back under our rightful control and it doesn't involve Americans shooting at each other.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Constitutional judges follow the Constitution and the Law, they do not twist themselves into pretzels to reach a particular political outcome.

Yes and no

the Constitution means whatever 5 demigods in black robes say it means

if libs ever take control of the court you will see what I mean

Yes and no, because hopefully the people will be the ultimate decider whether or not the courts have gone rogue or not. If they've gone rogue, then a rebellious revolution will come next, so if there ever was a time to be extremely watchful of the times in which we all live, then it's definitely now.

We have no need of a "Rebellious Revolution" in order to re-establish control over the Federal Government. Article V gives 2/3rds of the State Legislatures the authority to draft and circulate amendments for ratification, all with no input from the Federal Government.

Revolution would be a failure of our constitution. Why would we choose to fail rather than use this powerful tool that our Framers gave us, for just such a time as this?

Some potential Amendments:

1. Balanced Budget
2. Ability of a State Legislature to recall their Senator on a majority vote.
3. Ability of a majority of the State Legislatures, by passing the identical bill, to put it on the President's desk for signature.
4. Implement 12 year term limits on Judges as well as Judicial filibuster, and guarantee every judicial nomination an up and down vote in the US Senate.
5. 12 year term limits for House and Senate.

Those right there would do a great deal to bring the Federal Government back under our rightful control and it doesn't involve Americans shooting at each other.

I think they should also consider an amendment to clean up elections. I would definitely like to at least see them debate and brainstorm on the subject.

 

[Mac-7]

Constitutional judges follow the Constitution and the Law, they do not twist themselves into pretzels to reach a particular political outcome.

Yes and no

the Constitution means whatever 5 demigods in black robes say it means

if libs ever take control of the court you will see what I mean

Yes and no, because hopefully the people will be the ultimate decider whether or not the courts have gone rogue or not. If they've gone rogue, then a rebellious revolution will come next, so if there ever was a time to be extremely watchful of the times in which we all live, then it's definitely now.

We have no need of a "Rebellious Revolution" in order to re-establish control over the Federal Government. Article V gives 2/3rds of the State Legislatures the authority to draft and circulate amendments for ratification, all with no input from the Federal Government.

Revolution would be a failure of our constitution. Why would we choose to fail rather than use this powerful tool that our Framers gave us, for just such a time as this?

Some potential Amendments:

1. Balanced Budget
2. Ability of a State Legislature to recall their Senator on a majority vote.
3. Ability of a majority of the State Legislatures, by passing the identical bill, to put it on the President's desk for signature.
4. Implement 12 year term limits on Judges as well as Judicial filibuster, and guarantee every judicial nomination an up and down vote in the US Senate.
5. 12 year term limits for House and Senate.

Those right there would do a great deal to bring the Federal Government back under our rightful control and it doesn't involve Americans shooting at each other.

I think they should also consider an amendment to clean up elections. I would definitely like to at least see them debate and brainstorm on the subject.

We need to all vote in person with a picture ID and evidence of where we live

so no more absentee or mail-in ballots

and use paper ballots that can be audited

 

[MadChemist]

Unfortunate result when rule by the court is done from a religious and political perspective instead of ceding to the science and public health.
Common sense...out the window we go!

Seems like the court is supposed to rule based on the constitution.

Did that change ?

 

[MadChemist]

Unfortunate result when rule by the court is done from a religious and political perspective instead of ceding to the science and public health.
Common sense...out the window we go!

It was ruled on as it pertains to the Constitution.

Thank you for that perspective.

I am not familiar with the case.

 

[MadChemist]

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans


The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) restrictions on indoor worship services, agreeing with religious groups they are unconstitutional.

The High Court granted a petition from Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena that sought to overturn a lower court’s ruling in favor of Newsom’s restrictions.

The ruling cited the Supreme Court’s decision last week in a similar case in which it ruled in favor of faith groups that challenged New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s (D) worship restrictions.

-------------------------------------

Gruesome Newsom is a Leftist idiot. Even wacky Californians are circulating a petition to recall him.

the only thing is these courts make these rulings but there is never any action taken against these criminal governors. a judge did the same thing with facist whitmere and correct me if I am wrong,but isnt she still the governor there?

That isn't the job of the court.

Removing someone from office is the job of the voters.

I thought there was a recall effort started in Michigan.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Constitutional judges follow the Constitution and the Law, they do not twist themselves into pretzels to reach a particular political outcome.

Yes and no

the Constitution means whatever 5 demigods in black robes say it means

if libs ever take control of the court you will see what I mean

Yes and no, because hopefully the people will be the ultimate decider whether or not the courts have gone rogue or not. If they've gone rogue, then a rebellious revolution will come next, so if there ever was a time to be extremely watchful of the times in which we all live, then it's definitely now.

We have no need of a "Rebellious Revolution" in order to re-establish control over the Federal Government. Article V gives 2/3rds of the State Legislatures the authority to draft and circulate amendments for ratification, all with no input from the Federal Government.

Revolution would be a failure of our constitution. Why would we choose to fail rather than use this powerful tool that our Framers gave us, for just such a time as this?

Some potential Amendments:

1. Balanced Budget
2. Ability of a State Legislature to recall their Senator on a majority vote.
3. Ability of a majority of the State Legislatures, by passing the identical bill, to put it on the President's desk for signature.
4. Implement 12 year term limits on Judges as well as Judicial filibuster, and guarantee every judicial nomination an up and down vote in the US Senate.
5. 12 year term limits for House and Senate.

Those right there would do a great deal to bring the Federal Government back under our rightful control and it doesn't involve Americans shooting at each other.

I think they should also consider an amendment to clean up elections. I would definitely like to at least see them debate and brainstorm on the subject.

We need to all vote in person with a picture ID and evidence of where we live

so no more absentee or mail-in ballots

and use paper ballots that can be audited

True, but it's still going to be a matter of debate how you balance across-the-board federal election requirements with state sovereignty. At least, I would hope it's a matter of debate. I'm not interested in rushing headlong into setting more precedent for federal usurpation of power and micromanagement that the Democrats can then use to demand that every state has to be just like NY and CA. On the other hand, I think the Supreme Court missed the forest for focusing on the trees when they dismissed the Texas lawsuit for "lack of standing". Unlike many people on the right, I don't think it was a decision born of cowardice and lack of will. I think the more conservative members of the court were genuinely concerned about conservative principles of federalism; I also happen to think they were doing the equivalent of blowing out the candles while ignoring that the house is on fire. The growing perception that our election system is flawed and tainted and that states are under no obligation to follow their laws or the Constitution - and that they are answerable to no one for that - is a far greater threat to our system than the encroachment on state sovereignty they were fiddling around about.

 

[Zorro!]

Constitutional judges follow the Constitution and the Law, they do not twist themselves into pretzels to reach a particular political outcome.

Yes and no

the Constitution means whatever 5 demigods in black robes say it means

if libs ever take control of the court you will see what I mean

Yes and no, because hopefully the people will be the ultimate decider whether or not the courts have gone rogue or not. If they've gone rogue, then a rebellious revolution will come next, so if there ever was a time to be extremely watchful of the times in which we all live, then it's definitely now.

We have no need of a "Rebellious Revolution" in order to re-establish control over the Federal Government. Article V gives 2/3rds of the State Legislatures the authority to draft and circulate amendments for ratification, all with no input from the Federal Government.

Revolution would be a failure of our constitution. Why would we choose to fail rather than use this powerful tool that our Framers gave us, for just such a time as this?

Some potential Amendments:

1. Balanced Budget
2. Ability of a State Legislature to recall their Senator on a majority vote.
3. Ability of a majority of the State Legislatures, by passing the identical bill, to put it on the President's desk for signature.
4. Implement 12 year term limits on Judges as well as Judicial filibuster, and guarantee every judicial nomination an up and down vote in the US Senate.
5. 12 year term limits for House and Senate.

Those right there would do a great deal to bring the Federal Government back under our rightful control and it doesn't involve Americans shooting at each other.

I think they should also consider an amendment to clean up elections. I would definitely like to at least see them debate and brainstorm on the subject.

We need to all vote in person with a picture ID and evidence of where we live

so no more absentee or mail-in ballots

and use paper ballots that can be audited

...True, but it's still going to be a matter of debate how you balance across-the-board federal election requirements with state sovereignty. At least, I would hope it's a matter of debate. I'm not interested in rushing headlong into setting more precedent for federal usurpation of power and micromanagement that the Democrats can then use to demand that every state has to be just like NY and CA...

This is an interesting point. While our Constitution guarantees our fundamental rights, as originally drafted, it do not speak clearly to who would have enforcement power. This was corrected by the 14th amendment which made it clear that the Federal Government does have the power to secure individual rights, even against State encroachment. For example, for the 70 years prior to the 14th amendment, if a State majority decided to enslave a minority population, it wasn't clear that the Federal Government was empowered to secure the rights of the minority population against this gross encroachment by the state. Now it is perfectly clear, and the Federal government does secure our Liberty against even State encroachment.

... On the other hand, I think the Supreme Court missed the forest for focusing on the trees when they dismissed the Texas lawsuit for "lack of standing". Unlike many people on the right, I don't think it was a decision born of cowardice and lack of will. I think the more conservative members of the court were genuinely concerned about conservative principles of federalism; I also happen to think they were doing the equivalent of blowing out the candles while ignoring that the house is on fire. The growing perception that our election system is flawed and tainted and that states are under no obligation to follow their laws or the Constitution - and that they are answerable to no one for that - is a far greater threat to our system than the encroachment on state sovereignty they were fiddling around about...

Yes. I think the awareness of just how flawed our election systems are, snuck up on us to a certain extent, even though the realization has enough support that with greater vigilance we could have realized this some time ago. Once an illegal ballot is in the counting box it's nearly impossible for a Court to identify it and remove it. At the point that the Court got this I think it was too late to fix and that any attempts by the Court to "fix" it, would ultimately cause more damage that a Biden presidency until 2024. Let's face it. Had the Court attempted to undo the election, our cities would be on fire right now. The time to fix these systems was prior to the voting taking place, and the GOP failed on this front, both at the State Legislature level and the Federal Congress, both entities, unlike the Court, directly tasked by the Constitution to ensure election integrity.

Next time you hear any Republican Legislator, either on the State or Federal Level complaining about our election system, ask them for a copy of the bill they have submitted to remedy our voting practices. Like the song says: "A little less talk, and lot more action."