Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #1

    How do you spot a Biased SCOTUS, oh that's how....

    Wait so you can't limit people to make it safer during covid, but you can limit the # of people to make it safer because of a fire hazard? These type of things have been around for decades but now all of a sudden are unconstitutional?

    So i guess a 200 sqft church can now have 9,001 people inside and ignore fire codes....right?

    Didn't take too long for the most recent member to show its true colors

    Going to be a long long decade or two if democrats don't take the senate.


    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...rches-n1249079
    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/1...barrett-440808

    The U.S. Supreme Court issued an injunction late Wednesday blocking New York’s governor from enforcing 10- and 25-person occupancy limits on religious institutions


    In May and July, the Supreme Court narrowly rejected challenges to virus-related restrictions on churches in California and Nevada, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court’s Democratic appointees to stress that state and local governments required flexibility to deal with a dangerous and evolving pandemic.

    But support on the high court for those rulings shrank with Ginsburg’s death. Wednesday night’s orders granting emergency relief to Roman Catholic churches and to Jewish congregations in New York demonstrated, as many suspected, that Barrett would side with the court’s most conservative justices in insisting on greater accommodation for religion even as the pandemic is again surging.
    Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!

  2. #2
    I would encourage people to read the jugdgment itself or rather the order granting a writ, paying special attention to the majority and chief justice's dissent.

    Speaking to the broader issue at play here. It makes me deeply sad how nakedly partisan the US supreme court is. In any other top court in the anglosphere, intimations that said court (or judge on that court) was partisan would be treated as unprofessional at best or conspiracy theories at worst. I mean it's kinda fundamental to the function of society that the court is seen as above reproach so no one can question the legitimacy of its judgments.
    Tonight for me is a special day. I want to go outside of the house of the girl I like with a gasoline barrel and write her name on the road and set it on fire and tell her to get out too see it (is this illegal)?

  3. #3
    The Insane Underverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    The Underverse
    Posts
    16,294
    Magic sky man more important than the lives of frontline workers. This has always been the way.

  4. #4
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    65,334
    To play devil's advocate, there is a valid point to be made if you're allowing restaurants and bars to be open, but not allowing religious services and the like. That's a discrepancy that's pretty near impossible to justify.

    The response, of course, should be to recognize that opening bars and sit-down restaurants to the public was a fucking stupid idea. It's the inconsistency on these principles that led to the SCOTUS decision. You shouldn't be making exceptions for religious institutions, either by granting them special exemptions or cracking down more harshly.

    The simple way to go would be to require any institution or service which allowed unmasked patrons to shut down, and some strict allowances on the number of patrons and how long they're in the location for ones that require masks. If you want your church attendance of 50+ parishioners in an enclosed church for 2+ hours on a Sunday, that's a "fuck no", even if they're wearing masks. But you're making the same arguments, for the same reasons, for movie theaters (to pick a comparable density/duration of stay).

    The "acupunture" argument in the article is a bit iffy; if you get acupuncture for medical reasons and have a doctor's scrip for that kind of treatment, that's essential. Otherwise? It's for your enjoyment, as with any spa treatment. I can't see that as "essential". Nor can I see church attendance as "essential". You can do services remotely just fine.
    Last edited by Endus; 2020-11-26 at 07:45 PM.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    To play devil's advocate, there is a valid point to be made if you're allowing restaurants and bars to be open, but not allowing religious services and the like. That's a discrepancy that's pretty near impossible to justify.

    The response, of course, should be to recognize that opening bars and sit-down restaurants to the public was a fucking stupid idea. It's the inconsistency on these principles that led to the SCOTUS decision. You shouldn't be making exceptions for religious institutions, either by granting them special exemptions or cracking down more harshly.
    And to play reality’s advocate, at no time were churches banned from holding services. They were just required to reduce capacity. Restaurants and bars were only allowed to operate as takeout/delivery services.

  6. #6
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    65,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    And to play reality’s advocate, at no time were churches banned from holding services. They were just required to reduce capacity. Restaurants and bars were only allowed to operate as takeout/delivery services.
    If that's the case (I'd heard that restaurants were a bit looser than that), then I'd agree the decision here is a bit nonsense. The core of my argument is that religious services shouldn't be getting special consideration; they should be considered as a form of entertainment/relaxation/etc, not an essential service like a grocery store.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    If that's the case (I'd heard that restaurants were a bit looser than that), then I'd agree the decision here is a bit nonsense. The core of my argument is that religious services shouldn't be getting special consideration; they should be considered as a form of entertainment/relaxation/etc, not an essential service like a grocery store.
    Agreed. And yet they got special consideration. Which apparently was a huge issue for dummies like Gorsuch. Because they didn’t get enough special consideration? Idk, they misrepresented the restrictions in their decision anyway.

  8. #8
    Conservatives have been playing a scary game for a few years with the religious rights > US laws strategy for a while. It started as a way to stop abortion in red states, and then was used by the cake shops to refuse to sell to gay couples in Indiana and Colorado. Now it's been used to allow religious nuts to infect themselves with covid and ignore state restrictions if they want. And they probably even look at today's verdict as a victory.

    But this isn't the first rodeo with this idea. The last time it really went around was in the early-mid 80's when satanic cults and "churches" started popping up, claiming the same rights as Christian churches. The public went absolutely paranoid after stories (and tv shows and movies) where satanic cults with pentagrams, blood on the walls, animal sacrifices, etc. were uncovered in basements of quiet upper class neighborhoods. Then the church > state law talk quieted down, because people realized that pushing church > state could be a slippery slope. But now the idea is back.

    But it's more of a slippery slope than ever today. With the Internet there are a million fringe "religions". And once you decide that religion > laws you don't like or want to obey, it can be incredibly easy to abuse. Welcome to my religion of speed, where we don't believe our god intended us to drive speed limits. Instantly all state marijuana laws would be/are out the window with Rastafarianism, that's an actual religion so it's a slam dunk. A person could be arrested with 50lbs of weed in Alabama and a decent lawyer now could take it to SCOTUS and claim Alabama is impeding on his rights to practice his Rastafarian religion, AND use today's case as precedent. Now take that even further where a person could literally make a religion for any law they don't believe in, or just say my religion is god > state so I don't have to obey ANY United States law and you see why this is a really incredibly bad idea.

  9. #9
    Praying is all they're going to be able to do about it once the lungs fill with fluid.

    Enjoy those special religious exemptions from the law, yay, freedom.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daevelian View Post
    So this is how far the Lore forum has fallen? Eesh.
    I take it back, BfA is not the lowest the games lore could have gone, this thread proves that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    And just like the thread before it, let's back away from sexualizing Azshara and return to the original topic at hand.

  10. #10
    They are going to use this "Religious Freedom" as a hammer. It will be used from of course the meat and potato issues of birth control and pro-choice. Now you have this stupidity. I can be ignorant and endanger the welfare of the populace cause my religion!

    Some above have talked about religious services doing the same as say bars/restaurants. I'm of course fine with that. Not calling on a total banning of religious services. I have to be fair on that point.
    “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States…. [It is] nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”

    -Isaac Asimov

  11. #11
    What's the difference between this ruling and the earlier ones this year when Ginsburg was still part of the equation?

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    What's the difference between this ruling and the earlier ones this year when Ginsburg was still part of the equation?


    they rules on restrictions that were/are not even in place for the entities involved, the case should have been dissolved, since it was already solved without a ruling.
    “It may well be that such restrictions violate the Free Exercise Clause. It is not necessary, however, for us to rule on that serious and difficult question at this time,” the chief justice wrote in a solo dissent. “The Governor might reinstate the restrictions. But he also might not. And it is a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic.”

    “Unlike religious services … bike repair shops and liquor stores generally do not feature customers gathering inside to sing and speak together for an hour or more at a time,” she wrote. “Justices of this Court play a deadly game in second guessing the expert judgment of health officials about the environments in which a contagious virus, now infecting a million Americans each week, spreads most easily.”





    now vs then --- the total opposite 5-4 vs 4-5?
    In May and July, the Supreme Court narrowly rejected challenges to virus-related restrictions on churches in California and Nevada, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court’s Democratic appointees to stress that state and local governments required flexibility to deal with a dangerous and evolving pandemic.

    But support on the high court for those rulings shrank with Ginsburg’s death. Wednesday night’s orders granting emergency relief to Roman Catholic churches and to Jewish congregations in New York demonstrated, as many suspected, that Barrett would side with the court’s most conservative justices in insisting on greater accommodation for religion even as the pandemic is again surging.


    Basically they put religion in front of safety, health and wellbeing as granted in the constitution in order of importance. A nice preview of things to come.
    Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!

  13. #13
    Politically: That the death of a liberal judge and the appointment of a conservative judge has shifted the balance of power. Which has entirely skipped past the step of wondering why judges are partisan at all in the first place (the is not normal outside the US).

    Legally: The restrictions specifically targeted religious institutions to a more severe degree than they targeted businesses in the same 'zones'. Which is the source of the controversy.
    Tonight for me is a special day. I want to go outside of the house of the girl I like with a gasoline barrel and write her name on the road and set it on fire and tell her to get out too see it (is this illegal)?

  14. #14
    *shrugs*
    Earlier...one side wanted to flip tables. Today, the other side wants to flip tables.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Saltysquidoon View Post
    Politically: That the death of a liberal judge and the appointment of a conservative judge has shifted the balance of power. Which has entirely skipped past the step of wondering why judges are partisan at all in the first place (the is not normal outside the US).

    Legally: The restrictions specifically targeted religious institutions to a more severe degree than they targeted businesses in the same 'zones'. Which is the source of the controversy.
    "more sever"?

    Or "more sever because of its impact on the safety of the community"?

    Not all businesses are the same you know. Why do you think chemical storage facility is more severely restricted then a regular storage facility?


    Hell baseball stadiums could not admit 60,000 people and churches were upset because they could only admit a gaggle less then normally shows up?



    Again, explain to me how this is different then building and fire/occupancy codes/regulations? All which are more or less restrictive depending on type of business and type of building.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    *shrugs*
    Earlier...one side wanted to flip tables. Today, the other side wants to flip tables.
    No its quite clear

    one side wanted to protect everyone's right to safety and health.
    one side wanted to put religion above everyone else's right to safety and health.

    If the Gov of NY wanted to, he could just blanked everyone with a 5-25 limitation and say "sorry but everyone has to suffer because of religious services...."
    Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Zan15 View Post
    If the Gov of NY wanted to, he could just blanked everyone with a 5-25 limitation and say "sorry but everyone has to suffer because of religious services...."
    Had he done that he wouldn't have lost.
    But brass tacks here; imo this was more about optics and money.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Zan15 View Post
    Again, explain to me how this is different then building and fire/occupancy codes/regulations? All which are more or less restrictive depending on type of business and type of building.
    I don't have too, several legal minds with far more knowledge and experience in the relevant jurisdiction already have in far greater detail than I ever would or could.
    I'm not really sure what you took umbrage with? For one sentence I'm quite pleased with my distillation of the legal controversy, disagreeing with the outcome has no real bearing on the accuracy of my statement.

    If you really want me to dust off my (Australian) constitutional lawyer's cap I actually agree with the majority on the very point you brought up. A building that can fit 700 people being expressly limited to the set number purely because of it's nature as a place of worship with no latitude to take ameliorating action, while potentially some dodgy new york hole-in-the-wall's limit being essentially carte blanche for the owner is not only manifestly unfair but in my opinion also just incredibly stupid.

    Constitutional law by its very nature is an unwieldy beast and sometimes the court has to make a call that upholds the continuity and integrity of jurisprudence, even if it helps the bad guys and sometimes even the highest legal minds in the land just fumble the ball. It's the nature of the game.
    The governor would have been advised targeting religious practice was playing with fire, he hoped covid powers would cover him this time he got burned.

    What's more worrying is the horrifying implication that the only reason the governor got burned was because of who holds the judge's leash and not the merit of his actions.
    Tonight for me is a special day. I want to go outside of the house of the girl I like with a gasoline barrel and write her name on the road and set it on fire and tell her to get out too see it (is this illegal)?

  18. #18
    The Unstoppable Force Theodarzna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    23,293
    Quote Originally Posted by Saltysquidoon View Post
    Politically: That the death of a liberal judge and the appointment of a conservative judge has shifted the balance of power. Which has entirely skipped past the step of wondering why judges are partisan at all in the first place (the is not normal outside the US).

    Legally: The restrictions specifically targeted religious institutions to a more severe degree than they targeted businesses in the same 'zones'. Which is the source of the controversy.
    I think given in the US the Courts are effectively a super legislature that can conjure laws into existence makes them partisan. Be it for Citizens United or Roe v. Wade, the SCOTUS effectively is the real law making body.

    And yeah, the idea of having some institutions more restricted than others seems patently ridiculous.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Had he done that he wouldn't have lost.
    But brass tacks here; imo this was more about optics and money.
    My suspicion is that religious bodies much like schools got heavily restricted because they don't bring in tax revenue and don't generate profits, where as businesses got a lot of slack from Cuomo.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    i think I have my posse filled out now. Mars is Theo, Jupiter is Vanyali, Linadra is Venus, and Heather is Mercury. Dragon can be Pluto.
    Tankie Paleo-Conservatism with TERF characteristics / Socialism with My Chemical Romance characteristics. Caramelldansen Nationalism. Aimee Terese was right about Warren. Anti-HR Aktion. When that Polka hits!. Ceterum et dare nobis duo milia dollariorum!

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    My suspicion is that religious bodies much like schools got heavily restricted because they don't bring in tax revenue and don't generate profits, where as businesses got a lot of slack from Cuomo.
    Nope, it has to do with the fact that those religious bodies insist on holding services indoors other businesses have used outdoors and social distancing measures indoors to continue operating. These people want to hold service as if nothing happened as for schools it has less to do with money and more to do with unions and politics and the lack of funding to do things properly.

  20. #20
    Gov. Cuomo said a U.S. Supreme Court decision handed down last nightblocking state officials from enforcing a cap on religious gatherings in coronavirus hotspots in Brooklyn and Queens is “irrelevant from any practical impact” because those areas are no longer designated virus hotspots.
    ----

    I find myself unsurprised

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •