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

201–210 of 267 posts

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

#201

Post by int_19h »

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-...

It might be referring to this article.

https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2017-06-02/s...

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

#202

Post by billme »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #181
dragonwriter wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> . 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…

>In California, you can lend a firearm to other people who have a firearms safety certificate for up to 30 days... The state’s gun laws must be too loose if the firearms fetishists have to keep inventing fake restrictions to campaign against. Maybe before you go around calling names it would be beneficial to do some research of your own? I'll give you benefit of the doubt and assume that your knowledge of CA firearms…

>> “banned all loans to non-relatives”

False; see PC § 27885:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....

——

To give some idea of how complex firearm law is in California, take a peak at the 141 page document below (current as of 2019) covering “just” the state’s penal code:

https://www.atf.gov/file/117166/download

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

#203

Post by dragonwriter »

Press2forEN wrote: post #193
kmonsen wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Overall I would rather 2nd amendment would not exist and I don't think it belongs in a modern world Genuine question since I see this argument online with some regularity. Why don't you think the 2A belongs in a modern world? What does the time frame (modern vs not modern) have to do with human rights?

> Why don't you think the 2A belongs in a modern world?

The forgotten premise of the 2A is that it would prevent tyranny by providing the tools so that the citizenry could demand that the government not form permanent external or internal security services beyond what was necessary for a minimal tripwire and training cadre force that would form the nucleus of an at-need force that would be sized up as situations presented with the militia and it's privately-owned arms. Liberty wasn't guaranteed by permitting the general citizeney arms to fight the central government at need, but by providing the tools so that the citizens could use the government to meet their security needs while keeping the general citizenry and not a distinct and separate peofessional warrior group as the necessary and essential component of the government providing that function.

The development of standing armies scaled to fight major wars rather than serve as tripwire and cadre forces, professional paramilitary law enforcement services, the professionalization of not just standing military forces but even the ready reserves, culminating in the all-volunteer force, have all rendered that design outdated.

The 2A might conceivably serve it's function in a modern world, but not in a country where the citizenry has accepted the changes the US has since roughly the second quarter of the 19th Century which have completely eradicated it's fundamental premise.

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

#204

Post by bradleyjg »

jeffdavis wrote: post #162
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 c…

> when something pretty clearly goes against the text of the Constitution

Did Congress make a respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?

These rules may ultimately be ruled unconstitutional but there’s nothing pretty clear about the incorporation doctrine.

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

#205

Post by int_19h »

whoopdedo wrote: post #65
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…

As a legal bystander, I often feel the Supreme Court writes dissenting opinions for future-proofing the law. Regardless of whether they think the opposing argument is good or not, they don't want to lock a different generation into having to obey present day opinions that would be unsuitable for the country as it will be then. The dissenting opinion can be cited as justification for changing the precedent, allowing t…

It's such a missed opportunity, though.

I think that a big problem with SCOTUS as it stands today, is that a simple majority of judges is sufficient to decide profound matters of constitutionality. But if the decision is 5:4, or even 6:3 - if there are so many dissenters - shouldn't this be taken as prima facie evidence that the constitution is ambiguous on the issue, and needs to be disambiguated?

Imagine for a moment that any Supreme Court decision that causes such a split, automatically triggers the constitutional amendment process. And for every substantially different court opinion, the judges should come up with verbiage for an amendment that, if ratified, would result in them all joining that opinion. Whichever one passes, you have both your decision, and the constitution is actually updated to reflect it. If no amendment passes, then simple majority still decides, as today - but it doesn't set a binding precedent on the question of constitutionality.

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

#206

Post by Rebelgecko »

billme wrote: post #202
Rebelgecko wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In California, you can lend a firearm to other people who have a firearms safety certificate for up to 30 days... The state’s gun laws must be too loose if the firearms fetishists have to keep inventing fake restrictions to campaign against. Maybe before you go around calling names it would be beneficial to do some research of your own? I'll give you benefit of the doubt and assume that your knowledge of CA firearms…

>> “banned all loans to non-relatives” False; see PC § 27885: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... . —— To give some idea of how complex firearm law is in California, take a peak at the 141 page document below (current as of 2019) covering “just” the state’s penal code: https://www.atf.gov/file/117166/download

True, when I think of loan I was thinking more along the lines of "let a friend take it home", not loans that require colocation. Definitely agree with you on the complexity— some of my personal favorites are how CA and the Feds measure the lengths of guns completely differently, leading to much confusion. And of course there's 3 or 4 different definitions of what it means to "possess" a gun, which depend a lot on the context

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

#207

Post by [deleted] »

int_19h wrote: post #205
whoopdedo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a legal bystander, I often feel the Supreme Court writes dissenting opinions for future-proofing the law. Regardless of whether they think the opposing argument is good or not, they don't want to lock a different generation into having to obey present day opinions that would be unsuitable for the country as it will be then. The dissenting opinion can be cited as justification for changing the precedent, allowing t…

It's such a missed opportunity, though. I think that a big problem with SCOTUS as it stands today, is that a simple majority of judges is sufficient to decide profound matters of constitutionality. But if the decision is 5:4, or even 6:3 - if there are so many dissenters - shouldn't this be taken as prima facie evidence that the constitution is ambiguous on the issue, and needs to be disambiguated? Imagine for a mome…

[deleted]

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

#208

Post by josephcsible »

int_19h wrote: post #205
whoopdedo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a legal bystander, I often feel the Supreme Court writes dissenting opinions for future-proofing the law. Regardless of whether they think the opposing argument is good or not, they don't want to lock a different generation into having to obey present day opinions that would be unsuitable for the country as it will be then. The dissenting opinion can be cited as justification for changing the precedent, allowing t…

It's such a missed opportunity, though. I think that a big problem with SCOTUS as it stands today, is that a simple majority of judges is sufficient to decide profound matters of constitutionality. But if the decision is 5:4, or even 6:3 - if there are so many dissenters - shouldn't this be taken as prima facie evidence that the constitution is ambiguous on the issue, and needs to be disambiguated? Imagine for a mome…

While a good idea in theory, I feel like this would be pointless in practice, because none of the amendments would ever end up getting the supermajority of approval they'd need to pass.

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

#209

Post by fastball »

joshuamorton wrote: post #48
fastball wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dissent explicitly lists: > "factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries. " I think saying religion is equivalent to sports is pretty strange. People clearly place way more importance overall on religion than they do on sports, even in a country that's pretty crazy about sport. I would de…

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.

It is obviously not purely a function of danger. It is a cost-benefit of danger/importance. Clearly importance is relevant to this discussion. Supermarkets are open everywhere because they are very important (vital), even though they might be a ripe vector for transmission. I would agree that on the graph of danger against importance, supermarkets are obviously going to be less dangerous and more important than church. But my point was that it's not clear where to draw the line on this graph, and even if you do have a clear line, I think church is going to be higher on the cultural importance scale than concerts or sporting events, so it could make the cut even if they do not.

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

#210

Post by paulryanrogers »

Noos wrote: post #120
perl4ever wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just find it weird that nobody is bringing up Matthew 6:5. I can hardly imagine any example of "praying to be seen by men" purer than the politicization of opening churches right now. I have this feeling like, surely the cognitive dissonance will hit any minute now? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_6:5

You are forgetting Matthew 18, 19-20: "Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them." There is also the idea of Communion, which is a religious gathering instituted by Jesus himself, in Luke 22. Paul also exhorts believers not to "forsake the assembling of themselves" in…

Church services often involve singing and speaking loudly in confined spaces. Yet there's no evidence doing so is necessary to survive.

Proven mitigations against real threats are more important than the unprovable 'benefits' of religion. No matter how old, popular, or eloquent the source of the religion.

Post reply on HN