Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]
31–40 of 267 posts
Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
I too am dissapointed that this ruling was not unanimous, but the majority opinion is not much better. Both opinions seem to agree on the law generally, in that restrictions on places of worship must be no more onerous than restrictions on "comparable" secular activities. The dispute is what qualifies as comporable. The majority feels that services are comparable to "theatrical performances, where large groups of peo…
Because these are facts not law! As Alito points out he isn't a doctor and he isn't going to second guess them in the middle of a plague.
I agree with your and there's a joke somewhere in here but I can't quite compose it. Something like:
One SCJ says to another "I can't decide where to go this Sunday for brunch".
Second SCJ responds "you should check to see if there's relevant case law on who makes the best mamosas".
First SCJ checks LexisNexus and comes back empty handed and says to the first "guess I'll just go to the church instead".
Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]
#33The only thing that should be surprising about this ruling is the dissent. They can’t cite any applicable case law because there isn’t any. Up until now the Court has always treated the states’ (note states and not federal) police power in a pandemic to be near plenary. This is in line with English common law that developed under the shadow of the repeated waves of Bubonic Plague. Maybe that should change in light of…
Whether there is a pandemic or not isn't given great weight by either side. Both sides implicitly agree that California isn't allowed to go out of its way to penalize churches, but they disagree on whether it has done that.
Robert's order says that "similar or more severe restrictions apply to lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances." He concludes that California is not singling out churches.
Kavanaugh's dissent notes that churches are being treated worse than "factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries."
Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]
#34The key part of the dissent is what is a comparable “business” to a church service. I think it is sports arrangement, or perhaps political arrangement, and the Supreme Court justices believe It is a supermarket and manufacturing. I’m not sure how we could find common ground or understand each other. I do believe the governor could have made the case better by stating restrictions (6 feet personal space, no sharing dr…
Considering religion is protected by the First Amendment, I'm fine with erring on the side of importance. The other nuance here is that while churches might be free to open, they're also free to stay closed out of caution, and individuals are free to not go.
Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Ok, we'll switch to that from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-c....
I think the title is probably worth keeping.
Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]
#36Earlier 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?
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.
> 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.
They were both wearing helmets.
Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
I too am dissapointed that this ruling was not unanimous, but the majority opinion is not much better. Both opinions seem to agree on the law generally, in that restrictions on places of worship must be no more onerous than restrictions on "comparable" secular activities. The dispute is what qualifies as comporable. The majority feels that services are comparable to "theatrical performances, where large groups of peo…
Because these are facts not law! As Alito points out he isn't a doctor and he isn't going to second guess them in the middle of a plague.
I do not see any statement from Alito, but he voted with the dissent.
The position of Roberts (writing for the majority) is that:
> Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an “unelected federal judiciary,"
Which is to say, even the majority acknlowdges that there are times where the courts should intervene. The question of what a "comparable" secular activity is is very much a legal one.
Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Right, sorry, comment edited while you were responding. It just seems to strange to me they wouldn't be required in every state because it's such a severe safety hazard not to wear them.
Because in the US, states get to make some rules, and the
federal government gets to make some other rules, and
each is protective of their rights and prerogatives
as enumerated in the US constitution, as amended.
Look into amendments 9, 10, 13, & 14 for more.
When the US federal government has wanted to enforce things like a nation-wide speed limit, or vehicle safety requirements, they have had to threaten to withhold highway funding to get states to go along by passing state-by-state laws. In theory, the same could be done with helmet laws, but enough political energy has not materialized for that to happen. This pattern will have implications for full-self-driving vehicles.
Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, sorry, comment edited while you were responding. It just seems to strange to me they wouldn't be required in every state because it's such a severe safety hazard not to wear them.
Because in the US, states get to make some rules, and the federal government gets to make some other rules, and each is protective of their rights and prerogatives as enumerated in the US constitution, as amended. Look into amendments 9, 10, 13, & 14 for more. When the US federal government has wanted to enforce things like a nation-wide speed limit, or vehicle safety requirements, they have had to threaten to withho…
Yes thanks, I'm aware of how the federal system works.
Really in the weeds by now, but it just seems strange to me that each state has not decided, on it's own (as per the structure of our federal and state system of governance), to make helmets mandatory.
Re: Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf]
#40The key part of the dissent is what is a comparable “business” to a church service. I think it is sports arrangement, or perhaps political arrangement, and the Supreme Court justices believe It is a supermarket and manufacturing. I’m not sure how we could find common ground or understand each other. I do believe the governor could have made the case better by stating restrictions (6 feet personal space, no sharing dr…
Considering religion is protected by the First Amendment, I'm fine with erring on the side of importance. The other nuance here is that while churches might be free to open, they're also free to stay closed out of caution, and individuals are free to not go.
Sure, but everyone (at least me and the 8 people on the Supreme Court) believes the governor is allowed to impose some restrictions in a pandemic. He is just not allowed to have harsher restrictions on churches then comparable activities which seems reasonable even to me as an atheist.