Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

supremecourt.gov

11–20 of 267 posts

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#11

To paraphrase a well known orthodox rabbi in the US who wrote a long letter on the topic where he rules that one should wait where he ends: "we can to wait on returning to synagogue attendence, but we can't bring back a life".

Does he comment on motorcycle riding? I know two people who died riding motorcycles. Can't bring them back, either. Maybe motorcycle riding should be banned?

I lean libertarian, but there's cases where paternalistic laws make sense. For example, w.r.t. motorcycle riding, helmets are required. COVID-19 is a special case where paternalistic laws (albeit technically these orders aren't laws) seem proportional. A reduction in church capacity doesn't really seem like government overreach in the middle of a pandemic; especially because buildings already have (fire-department imposed) capacity limits.

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#12

To paraphrase a well known orthodox rabbi in the US who wrote a long letter on the topic where he rules that one should wait where he ends: "we can to wait on returning to synagogue attendence, but we can't bring back a life".

Does he comment on motorcycle riding? I know two people who died riding motorcycles. Can't bring them back, either. Maybe motorcycle riding should be banned?

Motor cycle riding is not particularly contagious.

Additionally, safety rules are in place to make Motor cycle riding as safe as possible for the rider and anyone with whom they interact.

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#13

To paraphrase a well known orthodox rabbi in the US who wrote a long letter on the topic where he rules that one should wait where he ends: "we can to wait on returning to synagogue attendence, but we can't bring back a life".

Does he comment on motorcycle riding? I know two people who died riding motorcycles. Can't bring them back, either. Maybe motorcycle riding should be banned?

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#14
post #6
post #4

PDF of related ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1044_pok0.pdf

Thank you. Maybe this should be the top level link? Unencumbered by the WaPo's editorializing and paywall.

Sounds fine to me, mod (aka dang) would need to edit the URL and decide on the title too.

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#16
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does he comment on motorcycle riding? I know two people who died riding motorcycles. Can't bring them back, either. Maybe motorcycle riding should be banned?

I lean libertarian, but there's cases where paternalistic laws make sense. For example, w.r.t. motorcycle riding, helmets are required. COVID-19 is a special case where paternalistic laws (albeit technically these orders aren't laws) seem proportional. A reduction in church capacity doesn't really seem like government overreach in the middle of a pandemic; especially because buildings already have (fire-department im…

Helmets aren't required in all US states (not sure why people don't wear them anyway, but some people don't).

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#17
Two thoughts on apolitical, pragmatic grounds:

This is a good ruling regardless of the importance of religious beliefs one might have. Churches are still subject to baseline rules like building codes, food safety (if they have a kitchen), have to pay their phone bill or else lose phone services,and the like. This represents an appropriate segregation of responsibility and allows parishioners to participate without having to consider externalities.

I also am interested by the prevalence of 5-4 rulings, which are typically taken to imply a highly polarized court (and thus leads to some consternation when the voting is “strange”). Consider the opposite: perhaps all the justices want people to be safe: when they know that five will vote in that way, the other four can safely issue “position papers”.

This latter point could be very important to the survival (credibility) of the court. The justices, though they don’t face elections, sometimes describe themselves as politicians: if people consider the court illegitimate or irrelevant then their rulings won’t be observed. So by signalling that every position is considered they help rope in those disappointed by the result.

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#18

To paraphrase a well known orthodox rabbi in the US who wrote a long letter on the topic where he rules that one should wait where he ends: "we can to wait on returning to synagogue attendence, but we can't bring back a life".

Does he comment on motorcycle riding? I know two people who died riding motorcycles. Can't bring them back, either. Maybe motorcycle riding should be banned?

It is completely reasonable to take precautions to avoid spreading a virus, just like you should wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle to protect yourself in the event that you crash.

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#19
post #16
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lean libertarian, but there's cases where paternalistic laws make sense. For example, w.r.t. motorcycle riding, helmets are required. COVID-19 is a special case where paternalistic laws (albeit technically these orders aren't laws) seem proportional. A reduction in church capacity doesn't really seem like government overreach in the middle of a pandemic; especially because buildings already have (fire-department im…

Helmets aren't required in all US states (not sure why people don't wear them anyway, but some people don't).

> which seems strange but I guess ones life is their own business

It's not strange at all. America is a federation of states which get to tax you, and get to pass their own laws. Your Mayor and Governor have much more impact in your day-to-day life than the President.

Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]

#20

To paraphrase a well known orthodox rabbi in the US who wrote a long letter on the topic where he rules that one should wait where he ends: "we can to wait on returning to synagogue attendence, but we can't bring back a life".

Does he comment on motorcycle riding? I know two people who died riding motorcycles. Can't bring them back, either. Maybe motorcycle riding should be banned?

I think the risk of motorcycle riding is mostly borne by the rider. If you think the reward outweighs the risk, you are welcome to ride. If you think it's too risky, you can decide to not ride. You have a great deal of control over your destiny. (There are many other risks, including risks to others, but we're ignoring those for this comment.)

The calculus of a pandemic is different. Your choices affect others, potentially exponentially. You can decide you're in a low risk group, and so you don't care if you get infected. So you do get infected, and like your risk analysis determined, are fine. But you also infected 3 more people thinking the same thing. They each infect more people. One of those people several "generations" away from you then receives an emergency phone call from the nursing home, and rush to go see grandma. They infect several people in the nursing home, and now people that didn't want to take the risk of getting COVID-19 so you could do something you wanted to get COVID-19 and die. When dealing with exponential growth, your small choices can explode into large consequences.

People don't do well with cause and effect that they are strongly removed from, and that's what we're seeing with calls to reopen. The negative effects of their behavior will never affect them, so their thought is to ignore it. People in charge of public health have to balance these externalities, and that's what they're trying to do. I am not saying that they made the right decision, but it still seems prudent to me to avoid unnecessary activities if it means you may save someone else's life. We did achieve some important goals in the 3 months that we've been shut down so far. We have better tests. We have better contact tracing. We have more PPE. We have taught people to socially distance. So we are certainly making progress towards being able to live more freely without increasing the risk to the most vulnerable. But we are not in the clear yet.

Post reply on HN