Supreme Court says state may enforce some restrictions on religious gatherings [pdf] • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, May 30, 2020, 11:35 PM UTC

wl wrote: post #101

jeffdavis wrote: post #96

The difference between respecting a right and not can be seen by how much restraint goes into crafting the law. The details can get murky, but often the spirit is plain to see: was a good faith effort made to specialize the law to the problem being solved with minimal interference on any rights? Here, the California order doesn't ban going to church, it places additional building capacity and total attendance limits.…

The gun store issue in California is even worse because of the gun laws. You cannot lawfully acquire ammunition anywhere except at a gun store. You cannot lawfully acquire or transfer a firearm to another person except at a gun store. Lending a firearm to a friend in case of civil unrest is right out. And if you have a place to shoot right now, your ammunition supply is probably a little perilous.

> . Lending a firearm to a friend in case of civil unrest is right out.

In California, you can lend a firearm to other people who have a firearms safety certificate for up to 30 days, civil unrest not required, and the rules are looser for family members out to grandparents/grandchildren. In the event of some imminent need due to civil unrest, the general criminal defense of necessity, which is recognized in California law, would be available even if the loan was otherwise prohibited.

The state’s gun laws must be too loose if the firearms fetishists have to keep inventing fake restrictions to campaign against.

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

#162

Post by jeffdavis » Sat, May 30, 2020, 11:38 PM UTC

bradleyjg wrote: post #9

The 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…

Although I happen to agree that, in this case, the order respects the freedom of religion; I also appreciate the dissent.

I'd be disturbed if there was no hint of dissent when something pretty clearly goes against the text of the Constitution. We should all have a bit of hesitation as this unprecedented stuff is happening, and make sure it's not permanent. Let's remember that this is all not normal, so hopefully we can somewhat get back to normal with our rights intact.

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

#163

Post by kmonsen » Sat, May 30, 2020, 11:38 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #69

kmonsen wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That list is not really accurate, shopping malls, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries are still closed I believe. Pet grooming is open, and to some extent I agree with you (although I have used one). In my opinion the difference is that social distancing is trivial. We left the pet in the trunk and they picked her up from there and delivered her back there. No human interaction. I find this f…

All those businesses are allowed to open under the current state order. A few of them weren’t allowed until the middle of last week though.

I stand corrected it seems, it is still not happening in most of the state and not at all in Santa Clara where I live.

In that case it seems a little bit inconsistent, but that is up to the governor to decide. I do feel he implemented this a bit badly, but not bad enough that most of the supreme court felt it was illegal.

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

#164

Post by pnw_hazor » Sat, May 30, 2020, 11:39 PM UTC

abhorrence wrote: post #155

pnw_hazor wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The court is letting states decide that religious practice is non-essential or less essential as compared to some selected commercial activities. I don't think a state or the US should be allowed to make that determination. Interfering with religious practice can cause irreparable harm to persons. It is up to the person and the religion. This is not really something the state can reason about.

Irreparable harm is a fairly flimsy rationale in the context of the shelter in place order. Nearly anything prevent by the order could be construed to cause irreparable harm -- and many are significantly more concrete than suspension of in person religious services, e.g. reduction in non-urgent healthcare.

Not everything is protected by the 1st Amd.

Religious practices are not supposed to be singled out. That is why a neutral rule that did not exempt grocery stores would be more consistent with US law.

I think the court was being lazy here because the covid rules are temporary rather than permanent. But the government cannot measure the harm that may be caused by missing church. You and I can say it is no big deal, but the government really can't say that without judging the merit/efficacy of the religious practice.

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

#165

Post by kmonsen » Sat, May 30, 2020, 11:41 PM UTC

AdrianB1 wrote: post #140

nsajko wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a constitution is meant to be broadly worded so it would not have to be changed often, though. Are you proposing to make the constitution just a regular old law?

I am not looking for a solution for a problem that is not mine. I am looking to understand how people see the Constitution is ignored (not sure what is the right term) and feel fine about that. My line of thought is that everything in the Constitution can be ignored in the same way, so it is completely worthless and no right does really exist because it can be revoked by a law or government statute at any point. Peop…

It is not ignored, but there is a long practice of interpreting it and defining exactly what it means. You have to spend some effort here in understand it and how it has changed through history instead of expecting to be able to just read the law and fully understand what it means.

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

#166

Post by jeffdavis » Sat, May 30, 2020, 11:43 PM UTC

compsciphd wrote: post #2

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".

I think the order was reasonable but let's remember that something lies between being forced to do something and being forced not to do something. What lies between is freedom, and it's a much larger space than the two extremes combined.

The Rabbi might use his freedom to leave his synagogue open, close it until we defeat coronavirus, or close it until defeat all transmissible contagious disease.

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

#167

Post by kmonsen » Sat, May 30, 2020, 11:45 PM UTC

AdrianB1 wrote: post #134

gamblor956 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Constitution protects religious beliefs not religious practices. Restrictions on religious practices was considered acceptable. Similarly, the content of speech is protected, but the action performed by that speech (for examine, incitement) is not.

False: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". "Free exercise" = "free practice" for the layman. For free speech, the protection should be for speech, there is no free action so your comment is not clear on what it points at.

You are making strong statements about things you need to read up more on. The congress and others can put limits on religious practice in many ways. The most relevant example here is that building and fire codes apply for churches.

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

#168

Post by xeromal » Sat, May 30, 2020, 11:45 PM UTC

kmonsen wrote: post #51

joshuamorton wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question isn't one of importance, but of the danger to individuals from partaking in the activity. Yes, speaking constitutionally, shopping malls are less important than churches. But that doesn't matter if a church service is a religious concerts and concerts (religious or secular) aren't allowed.

Just note that shopping malls are closed in California so that is not a reasonable argument. But for example Tesla manufacturing is reopened, is that a comparable activity? I think this whole case is clearly subjective and should not be of course. It would be useful to have a general rule what a church is comparable to.

Malls opened in Los Angeles on wednesday

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

#169

Post by lazyant » Sat, May 30, 2020, 11:45 PM UTC

jawns wrote: post #71

gumby wrote: post #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 ha…

> The justices, though they don’t face elections, sometimes describe themselves as politicians Could you cite examples of them saying that? Generally, the justices go out of the way to insist that they are not political. See, for instance: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-chiefjustice/u-...

"This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups," a seething Kavanaugh said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408821-kavanaugh-says-he...

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

#170

Post by dvt » Sat, May 30, 2020, 11:48 PM UTC

AdrianB1 wrote: post #136

dvt wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That reasoning tells that a law (the "criminal law") beats the Constitution by putting restrictions on a Constitutional right. There's a lot to parse in your post, but I would strongly suggest reading J.S. Mill's On Liberty [1]. In it, Mill describes (what is now known) as the Harm Principle[2]. This (or something like this), and not necessarily criminal law, is essentially what the Constitution is beholden to. It…

Do I need to read a book of over 220 pages to solve a simple logic problem? This is the problem: 1. Constitution gives a right: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" 2. A law restricts the right 3. A law cannot disobey the Constitution. 4. Everyone thinks this is fine, including SCOTUS. You don't have to be Vulcan to see logic is broken.

> A law cannot disobey the Constitution.

Laws are found to disobey the Constitution literally all the time (this is what SCOTUS does). And, yes, you do need to read a book to understand how modern political philosophy works. Just how you need to read a book to understand how the cardiovascular system works.