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]

#21

Post by mythrwy » Sat, May 30, 2020, 7:09 PM UTC

dvt wrote: post #19

mythrwy wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#22

Post by tehwebguy » Sat, May 30, 2020, 7:11 PM UTC

generalpass wrote: post #7

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".

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 thought this was the motorcycles-only synagogue too but turns out it’s just a regular one.

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

#23

Post by root_axis » Sat, May 30, 2020, 7:14 PM UTC

generalpass wrote: post #7

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".

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?

Riding a motorcycle is not at all similar to the spread of a highly contagious virus. Further, the style of argument where one sarcastically suggests banning a completely unrelated source of death with respect to a different topic is not conducive to productive discourse.

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

#24

Post by gizmo686 » Sat, May 30, 2020, 7:15 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…

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 people gather in close proximity for extended pe- riods of time", and not

"grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods."

The dissent considers comparable activities to include:

"factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries. "

Neither side cites caselaw for there determination on this crucial fact.

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

#25

Post by wbl » Sat, May 30, 2020, 7:16 PM UTC

gizmo686 wrote: post #24

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…

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.

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

#26

Post by disposekinetics » Sat, May 30, 2020, 7:19 PM UTC

rantwasp wrote: post #3

probably this will rub some people the wrong way but, it amazes me how people put fiction before their well being.

This case is harder than most because this is so communicable.

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

#27

Post by kmonsen » Sat, May 30, 2020, 7:20 PM UTC

The 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 drinking cups, perhaps no choir in enclosed spaces?) instead of blanket numbers like max 100 people in a service regardless of church size which seems a bit arbitrary.

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

#28

Post by kmonsen » Sat, May 30, 2020, 7:22 PM UTC

gizmo686 wrote: post #24

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…

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…

Yes, I mentioned this elsewhere as well. They key point is what is a comparable activity. That probably needs to go into law, or can this be used as a precedent later?

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

#29

Post by gnicholas » Sat, May 30, 2020, 7:24 PM UTC

dvt wrote: post #8

Just to be clear, as it seems not many people actually read the ruling, this is not an injunction on gatherings, but a ruling on the restrictions imposed (e.g. only 25% capacity, maximum of 100, etc.).

The rules that were challenged were the 25% capacity and no more than 100 people rules that newsom issued recently, after public outcry that the original rules (no church until phase 3) were inappropriate. The church in question seems to have focused on the 25% capacity portion of the new rules.

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

#30

Post by kmonsen » Sat, May 30, 2020, 7:24 PM UTC

wbl wrote: post #25

gizmo686 wrote: post #24

Earlier 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.

Didn’t he second guess doctors though? There were doctors writing the order but he said it should be overruled. Sorry if I’m misunderstanding, honestly want to understand here.

Edit: I have tried to find what Alito thinks but can’t find any information. He voted to fully reopen churches but did not join the dissenting opinion or wrote his own so I don’t really know what his opinion is.