Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

supremecourt.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 267 posts

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

#171

Post by kurthr »

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.

There's an interesting constitutional issue there... which is that the right to bear arms is not the right to buy ammunition. That is made all the more challenging for an originalist, because metalic cartridges with percussion caps were not invented for almost a hundred years after the Bill of Rights.

If black powder and shot for a muzzle loader are available, has your right been abridged? Is it merely that you as a fully unprepared militiaman are inconvenienced? Does that mean that if you're late for a TV interview, zoom meeting, or tweetstorm you're free to drive through traffic lights in pursuit of the 1st amendment?

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

#172

Post by chrisoverzero »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #153
thomasmeeks wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you do, but here's a short primer. https://www.dummies.com/education/history/american-history/h... Ultimately if you can't be bothered to read a short book on the subject, you can just live with your confusion on the subject. The world can't be boiled down to sophomoric sequences of logic that ignore the complexities of reality and human behavior.

So there is no logic explanation of the problem. I am fine with that answer, no need for more.

>So there is no logic[al] explanation of the problem.

Logic isn’t even the correct framework to apply.

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

#173

Post by [deleted] »

dragonwriter wrote: post #161
wl wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Californ…

[deleted]

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

#174

Post by antognini »

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…

> I also am interested by the prevalence of 5-4 rulings, which are typically taken to imply a highly polarized court

I think it's also worth considering that the vast majority of cases that are appealed to the Supreme Court are not taken up by the Court simply because they would rule unanimously or close to unanimously. The Court has a limited amount of cases that it can hear each term, so it goes out of its way to select those for which the law is the most unsettled (and therefore are most likely to produce split results).

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

#175

Post by ofcoursetheydo9 »

Not a shock. Paraphrasing Scalia who wrote years ago, the context was about the 2nd, but his point was there are no absolute rights.

In this case he said that the 2nd (and clarified he meant all rights) is not a license to carry whatever weapon wherever you want for whatever purpose. That the point of the amendment was contextualized and needs to retain that context.

Religious practice doesn’t HAVE to take place in a temple. It’s reasonable enough to say that at home or safe group sizes during pandemic create less of a burden on the religious than the spread of a pandemic does for everyone.

I understand that that’s not how it was decided. But it goes to show that they don’t just think in black and white. Kavanaugh is an ignoramus though.

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

#176

Post by kmonsen »

pnw_hazor wrote: post #154
zaroth wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it most certainly is a human right. Religious or otherwise. That was actually never up for debate. The question is that right can only be temporarily, narrowly, and non-discriminately suspended under extraordinary circumstances, and 5-4 agreed that is in fact what has been done.

The problem is that the government is saying that grocery shopping is more important than going to church. For me personally, grocery shopping is undeniably more important since I am not religious. But for others being denied access to religious services or practice may be a grave sin that is worse than having to wait in longer lines at the grocery store. On that note, I am going to go shopping.

They are still allowed religious service and practice, but in a controlled way that will not spread the virus.

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

#177

Post by wnoise »

treis wrote: post #90
ineedasername wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that is very on point. Secular businesses are something different in gathering type than Church services. And when it comes to gatherings where there would be similar close contact inside with often static groups of people, the Supreme Court majority properly made that comparison: "similar or more severe restrictions apply to lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performanc…

But less severe restrictions apply to other things deemed "essential" or that require physical attendance. And that's the crux of the issue. The government can't declare churches "non-essential" and close them.

> The government can't declare churches "non-essential" and close them.

And indeed, under this current order, they haven't.

They've limited them to min(25% capacity, 100). What's under contention is whether this is treating churches differently than other similarly-situated secular facilities. The two sides come to a disagreement over which other facilities count as "similarly-situated".

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

#178

Post by jeffdavis »

kmonsen wrote: post #156
jeffdavis wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I’m strongly in favor out stronger gun control but find your argument here reasonable." A few genuinely curious questions. First, would you rather there was just no 2nd Amendment at all? I can understand that point of view. Second, let's assume there is a right to bear arms, and that it's not going away. Do you think all of the little half measures are actually helpful? Stuff like how you can buy ammo, or what model…

Overall I would rather 2nd amendment would not exist and I don't think it belongs in a modern world (I am a retired soldier that has served abroad, and have gone to gun ranges to shoot). I think currently stronger background checks, strong penalties for selling guns outside of this and bans of large magazines and ways of reloading quickly. I would support some way of limiting open arms in public places, I do not thin…

"I'm personally mostly OK with rifles, except automatic rifles with large capacity magazine."

You mean semi-auto or fully-auto?

I ask because many states in the stats I offered allow pretty much any semi-auto rifle to eligible people with little restriction, and the deaths are still lower than knives/fists. While I agree that some rifles are scary, the data just don't seem to justify restrictions on semi-auto rifles regardless of magazines.

I think all states have laws against brandishing or threatening people with any weapon.

I generally agree about background checks, but some laws are pretty extreme, where it prevents reasonable sharing, and I don't agree with that.

I am not aware of any real problems with open carry demonstrations other than they make people uncomfortable. That doesn't seem like a great reason to pass a law, but I don't see a big problem having a law like that in city limits. You need ways to allow people to legally transport though, which should include walking.

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

#179

Post by chrisoverzero »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #100

I am not a lawyer, just an IT guy trying to use logic: the rights in the US Constitution and amendments don't exist. They are not worth the paper they are printed on, because reasoning like this can kill each and every one with the death of a thousand cuts: "However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general co…

>Please explain me where I am wrong in terms that use logic […]

That’s not really possible, since logic isn’t the basis of law. This is a trap that the engineering-minded seem to fall into frequently when examining the law: There is more to American jurisprudence than the literal text of the Bill of Rights.

It’s not particularly difficult to see where this would fall apart, even. Imagine a religion which requires its adherents to kill one person per year. A person with the required “sincerely held beliefs” who follows this religion would be allowed to kill with impunity under a literal examination of the first amendment. (Or, maybe not. Since we’re looking only at the BoR, I guess we’re pretending there’s no incorporation in this hypothetical?)

Rather than try to keep rewriting that one rule to greater and greater, more and more unwieldy specificity – don’t forget that the US Constitution is difficult to amend on purpose – the entire body of law applies. Given the prominence of the first amendment, there are likely more cases relating to it than one could conceivably read in order, beginning to end. Employment Division v. Smith [1] probably relates most directly to your question. (But do remember when you read it that incorporation is a real thing that exists. Don’t let it distract that it wasn’t federal action.)

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

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

#180

Post by jeffdavis »

kurthr wrote: post #171
wl wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's an interesting constitutional issue there... which is that the right to bear arms is not the right to buy ammunition. That is made all the more challenging for an originalist, because metalic cartridges with percussion caps were not invented for almost a hundred years after the Bill of Rights. If black powder and shot for a muzzle loader are available, has your right been abridged? Is it merely that you as a…

"If black powder and shot for a muzzle loader are available, has your right been abridged?"

Your idea has been deemed dangerous by the internet police, and your ISP connection will be cancelled. Don't worry, you are still free to write a letter to your local newspaper, so your rights have not been infringed.

Our rights are naturally extended with technological advances in the same spirit. Demanding cell tower records is considered a "search" and twitter is "the press".

Post reply on HN