६ फेब्रुवारी, २०२१

"A splintered Supreme Court on late Friday night partly lifted restrictions on religious services in California that had been prompted by the coronavirus pandemic...."

"With the pandemic raging, in-person worship services were entirely barred in Tier 1, which covers almost all of the state. In a brief, unsigned opinion, the court blocked that total ban but left in place a 25 percent capacity restriction and a prohibition on singing and chanting. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch said they would have blocked all of the restrictions. Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented, saying they would have left all of the restrictions in place. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in a concurring opinion, explained why a middle ground was appropriate....  Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in her first opinion, wrote that she would not have blocked the restrictions on singing and chanting based on the available evidence. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh joined her opinion. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., said the state had favored its entertainment industry over worship services.... 'In the worst public health crisis in a century,' Justice Kagan wrote, 'this foray into armchair epidemiology cannot end well.'"


Here's the opinion. I'll just single out the Gorsuch opinion, which looks at what I find most compelling, unequal treatment. It's one thing for government to choose a strict, risk-averse approach to the epidemic, something else to be strict toward some and generous toward others. Justice Gorsuch writes:
It seems California’s powerful entertainment industry has won an exemption. So, once more, we appear to have a State playing favorites during a pandemic, expending considerable effort to protect lucrative industries (casinos in Nevada; movie studios in California) while denying similar largesse to its faithful. See, e.g., Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, 591 U. S. ___, ___ 2020) (GORSUCH, J., dissenting from denial of application for injunction relief ).... 
Government actors have been moving the goalposts on pandemic-related sacrifices for months, adopting new benchmarks that always seem to put restoration of liberty just around the corner. As this crisis enters its second year— and hovers over a second Lent, a second Passover, and a second Ramadan—it is too late for the State to defend extreme measures with claims of temporary exigency, if it ever could. Drafting narrowly tailored regulations can be difficult. But if Hollywood may host a studio audience or film a singing competition while not a single soul may enter California’s churches, synagogues, and mosques, something has gone seriously awry.

७० टिप्पण्या:

Browndog म्हणाले...

Screw these assholes.

Instead of being concise and declarative when it comes to abuses of Constitution rights, it's always the same-

This one time in this one circumstance the specific wording of this particular law is somewhat problematic. We recommend this ever slight change and/or remand the case back to the lower court to take another look-see.

See you in 4 years, when almost the exact same case with the exact same Constitutional question makes it's way back to our docket.

iowan2 म्हणाले...

We are already seeing the leftist labeling CAGCC as a huge national emergency that Biden needs to declare to clear the way for mandates that avoid legislation.

I see Wisconsin Governor promptly issued a new mask order the same day the Legislature passed laws cancelling the one in place. FU citizens, the single person in the Governors Mansion rules you, to hell with self governance.

Wince म्हणाले...

'In the worst public health crisis in a century,' Justice Kagan wrote, 'this foray into armchair epidemiology cannot end well.

This does not address the Gorsuch option's "unequal treatment" argument that Althouse singles out.

Although "epidemiology" may be outside the bailiwick of the Court, equal protection and fundamental rights are within its province.

mezzrow म्हणाले...

"It's one thing for government to choose a strict, risk-averse approach to the epidemic, something else to be strict toward some and generous toward others."

You say this like it's a bad thing.

If you are wielding a filter of repressive tolerance to shape policy in the manner of Marcuse, this is exactly what government is designed to do. James Lindsay is riffing at length on this exact subject these days at his New Discourses site. I recommend his musings to help us find clarity on this. YMMV.

iowan2 म्हणाले...

Can we impeach those justices that refused to protect citizens against the govt? That is way more a violation of the constitution than the speech President Trump gave.

rhhardin म्हणाले...

The rational basis idea is that vibrating vocal cords shake virus in to the breath which is exhaled, so singing and shouting releases huge amounts of virus where mere presence does not.

Whispered singing and cheering might be okay.

David Begley म्हणाले...

Dems are such hypocrites. The Dems on SCOTUS are political tools. Let’s call this for what it is: lawless hypocrisy.

D.D. Driver म्हणाले...

Of what qualification is Kagan to describe this as worst public health crisis in a century? I've been told "gun violence" and "racism" are major public health crisises. What about obesity? I must think diabetes and heart disease are still bigger problems than COVID.

If the government "gets to do whatever it wants" whenever there is a "public health crisis" (to use Kagan words) "it cannot end well."

But Kagan gets bonus points for accusing everyone else of "armchair epidemiology." Delicious lack of irony awareness.

richlb म्हणाले...

"Government actors have been moving the goalposts....."

Actors. Nice touch.

Kai Akker म्हणाले...

I get the disgust that even some justices didn't see the unequal treatment point -- but I feel grateful that our highest institutions are still capable of seeing the situation clearly and acting upon it. The limitations in number, and the limitation on singing -- there is some basis for it. But that no one could gather together at all to think about, seek for, and thank whatever Greater Power there is, that has been a sickness and disease politic in its own awful way.

In some related way -- look at the groveling apology from one of the two NYTimes men who didn't measure up to Torquemada's rules. It should be signed, As told to the KGB. So, in that context, the Supreme Court ruling is still a ray of light in this darkness.

tcrosse म्हणाले...

Here in Nevada, casinos pay taxes but churches don't. Simple as that.

Sebastian म्हणाले...

"looks at what I find most compelling, unequal treatment."

Sure, sure, much less compelling than power-hungry progs oppressing people and squashing liberty for no identifiable benefit on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

"It's one thing for government to choose a strict, risk-averse approach to the epidemic,"

Sure, sure, depriving people of their constitutional rights, like, rights actually specified in the actual Constitution, is not a "risk" to be strictly averted.

David Begley म्हणाले...

The whole planet is going to burn up if Biden doesn’t act now. That’s a way bigger crisis.

Breezy म्हणाले...

States need to re-write public health emergency laws to harden the time frame of the emergency restrictions. The legislatures, our representatives, need to have more say in these matters, particularly as they relate to unfair application and denial of access to livelihoods or educational services. It’s not unfair in some circumstances to say that domestic terrorists are ruling us.

Fernandinande म्हणाले...

something else to be strict toward some and generous toward others.

They weren't treating people differently, they were treating different activities differently.

Birches म्हणाले...

ACB proves her worth here. Religious freedom, whatever else gets hammered during the Fake Biden Presidency, will be protected.

A few years ago, Thomas would have been the only one saying he would have blocked all restrictions as well.

gilbar म्हणाले...

this is ridiculous !

Of COURSE essential industries,
like recreational marijuana, and the rest of the entertainment industries can stay open
Of COURSE non essential things; like Churches, gun stores, and republican protests are banned

The entertainment industry, is Explicitly Protected by our Living Constitution
Our Living Constitution has not one word protecting frivolous things like Churches or Guns

We, As Loyal Americans, Need to (HAVE to) OBEY our Living Constitution
Otherwise, we'd end up in a country, that would allow someone to be President just because People voted him in
LONG LIVE BIG BROTHER! LONG LIVE Our Brave New World!!

robother म्हणाले...

"ACB proves her worth here." How so? It looks like she voted to uphold certain restrictions, joining Roberts.

Browndog म्हणाले...

ACB deferring to the government over the rights and freedoms of citizens is consistent with her previous opinions.

You were warned.

narciso म्हणाले...

Robert barnes said as much

mikee म्हणाले...

Meanwhile, it is perfectly okey-dokey, and no problem at all re: COVID, for the homeless to "camp" under bridges here in Austin. The tents are packed in like sardines in a can, strangers are sleeping all night less than 6 feet apart, there is trash, mud, urine, feces, used syringes, drug dealers, NGOs, two porta potties for 50 people or so, but no problem for COVID!

If the bullshit wasn't on stilts it might not be noticed, but walking around 10 feet off the ground screaming at everyone all the time, the bullshit is kinda not avoidable now. I believe the purpose of this is to grind in the idea that the local asshat Mayor Adler and his City Council of Fools will do whatever they want to us proles, good and hard, and we better damn well say thank you for it.

Ray म्हणाले...

In the aftermath of the election, with so many judges ruling against looking at potential voter fraud, I've come to the conclusion that there were no "Trump" judges, just "McConnell" judges. Bamboozled by his inner circle again. He deserves some blame, but I struggle to think who had his back.

Whiskeybum म्हणाले...

Notice the broad brush that California used in closing down ALL churches. Our local church has two huge venues for services - people can easily space part greater than 6 feet beside/in-front of them. Also, since masks are required by the Church, this largely addresses the ‘extra’ spread of virus germs from singing that is circumstantially claimed (unless you sing like Pavarotti, masks should make singing and talking about the same as far as airflow from the speaker... masks DO work, right??).

Matt Sablan म्हणाले...

Notice how the more "conservative" a justice gets, the more likely they are to rely on nuance and disagree with each other on the the correct solution, while the further "left" you get, the more likely to get complete agreement. It happens in nearly every case, even ones with such an obviously right answer as this one (churches/religious services can't be singled out for special restrictions not given to other gatherings of similar size.)

Francisco D म्हणाले...

Splintered?

It was 6-3 with the usual suspects on the usual side of the issue. There were separate opinions indicating some wanted a stronger defense of churches. That only seems splintered if the NYT wants people to think it was an aberrant decision.

donald म्हणाले...

Nobody Ray. Nobody that mattered.

John henry म्हणाले...
ही टिप्पणी लेखकाना हलविली आहे.
DavidUW म्हणाले...

I look forward to asking cops in California if they joined the force to patrol church attendance.

This is the perfect time for mass (un)civil disobedience at churches.

The publicity of Newsom's jackbooted thugs dragging families out of church for violating a stupid rule would be just what the recall effort needs.

richlb म्हणाले...

"Here in Nevada, casinos pay taxes but churches don't. Simple as that."

Does Nevada not have property tax?

Mike (MJB Wolf) म्हणाले...

I don’t like the signal the SCOTUS is sending with its tilt toward safetyism over the Constitution. A bad flu season is not a reason to abrogate liberties and ignore the first amendment. I don’t like this at all. One hallmark of free people is we are free to assume the risk inherent in living a normal life! Nothing creates backlash like extended overreach!!

Josephbleau म्हणाले...

By definition an emergency can’t last this long, COVID is now not an emergency but a part of life. State legislatures have had a full season to pass appropriate rules as representatives of the people. Why are governors still dictating to us a year later?

Leland म्हणाले...

I see violation of the right to assemble and practice religion along with the argument of equal treatment. It is sad that these fundamental rights now splinter the court

Josephbleau म्हणाले...

Deaths from COVID are insignificant compared to deaths by heart disease. Where are the government edicts making it a crime to have high cholesterol, you science deniers.

AZ Bob म्हणाले...

But if Hollywood may host a studio audience or film a singing competition while not a single soul may enter California’s churches, synagogues, and mosques, something has gone seriously awry.

Amen.

Jersey Fled म्हणाले...

I've searched in vain for a real study that quantitatively proves that singing poses a real risk.

The best I could do were a German study that showed no increase in transmission due to singing but a slight increase caused by the playing of wind instruments, and a Mayo Clinic study.

The Mayo Clinic study was interesting. It tried to measure how particles might be transmitted by a strong expulsion of said particles (for example a sneeze) between two people wearing masks at a range of six feet. It found that masks trapped 99% of the particles. Good news! But it also found that maintaining a distance of 6 feet alone, no mask on either party, reduced the transmission of particles by 97%. A slight improvement at best. And I'm guessing that many of the masks I see people wearing are not up to the standards of those used in the Mayo Clinic study.

I read about the Mayo Clinic study at Powerline if anyone wants to dig further. And note that the study was more akin to a sneeze than someone singing.

In any case, closing churches because someone might be singing violates the least intrusive method test for religious practice that has been well established by the courts. CA did not restrict singing in general, they carved out specific requirements for churches. Does anyone doubt why?

Achilles म्हणाले...

Birches said...

ACB proves her worth here. Religious freedom, whatever else gets hammered during the Fake Biden Presidency, will be protected.

You were joking right?

California is still limiting participation in church services and this is constitutional according to ACB.

She is just another robed priest of the law cult.

Ken B म्हणाले...

Gorsuch is the best thing Trump did. He’s quite right of course.

Birches म्हणाले...

I wish she was with Gorsuch and Thomas on this, but she is better than RGB and John Roberts who allowed all restrictions to continue.

Achilles म्हणाले...

Josephbleau said...

By definition an emergency can’t last this long, COVID is now not an emergency but a part of life. State legislatures have had a full season to pass appropriate rules as representatives of the people. Why are governors still dictating to us a year later?

Because of smart people like Ann.

And Ken B who still use the term Covidiot.

They so desperately need to look down on people. It was pointed out this was just a power grab by governments and there was no science behind any of these actions.

We don't even know how many people died of Covid-19.

We know how many people died of pneumonia, Covid-19, the Flu... and cancer and heart disease and suicide and car accidents.

One thing I know about "Smart" people: They will never admit they were wrong the entire time.

Especially when they were throwing out pseudo-moralistic crap.

Ken B म्हणाले...

Fernandistein makes his usual argument.
Rule one no Jewish prayers. Rule two Christian prayers are allowed.
Ferd: “of course that should be upheld. They aren’t treating people differently, those are different activities “

Achilles म्हणाले...

Birches said...

I wish she was with Gorsuch and Thomas on this, but she is better than RGB and John Roberts who allowed all restrictions to continue.

So she is a 2nd tier acolyte.

She will be a full priest in 10 years.

Mark म्हणाले...

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in her first opinion

Her first SIGNED opinion. I suspect that some of the per curiam decisions that came out recently were authored, at least in part, by her.

narciso म्हणाले...


Re the source

So
@washingtonpost
since you're just starting to report on the bat CoV sampling, chimeric viruses, the Mojiang miners, the missing database, and EcoHealth ties to the WIV - are you interested in talking to me about all these naughty papers coming out of China?

Birches म्हणाले...

Last summer these restrictions were upheld. All of them.

hombre म्हणाले...

No matter how many times I read the First Amendment I can’t find an exception to the “free exercise” clause for “autocratic decree” by a governor or a king.

The composition of the Court does not appear to matter. For all but Thomas protection of the Constitution appears to be a matter of convenience, personal preference or, most tragically, intestinal fortitude.

Freedom of religion. Election integrity. Meh!

JK Brown म्हणाले...

It has become quite obvious from the pandemic decisions or reluctance/refusal of courts to permit claims, that the courts, top to bottom, judges, conservative or liberal, offer no protection to the citizens against infringement of their liberties. A few years ago, I found the passage below. Inspiring (if politically incorrect in the modern). But it also highlights in the next iteration in the march from Magna Carta to today will be imposing restrictions on the judiciary. I've no clue how that could be done.


"The study of Anglo-American constitutional law is that of the liberties of the people. Neither a body of dry technicalities, as the demagogue is prone to consider it, nor an instrument new created in the year 1787 and now but an inconvenient impediment to the national destiny, our own Constitution registers the totality of those principles which, in eight hundred and forty years of struggle, the Saxon peoples have won back again from Norman kings, the common law from Roman conceptions of a Sovereign State; each rising wave of freedom leaving its record in some historic document, then perhaps to recede again until the next flood left a higher record still. And if to the Mother Country is due the invention of the Constitution as a bulwark of the people against the Executive, to our forefathers belongs the glory of protecting the people against the Legislative as well; and against the usurpations of any Government or law, even of their own making, on that irreducible minimum which time has shown to be necessary to the English-American people for freedom as they understand it. Give them less than this and they will fight."

--THE CONSTITUTION AND THE PEOPLE'S LIBERTIES, F. J. STIMSON. (1907)

Achilles म्हणाले...

Birches said...

Last summer these restrictions were upheld. All of them.

That any of this is still happening, that our government is still using the obvious pretext of "COVID-19" to destroy our freedom is a testament to our failure as citizens.

We have been coddled for too long.

It is time for some pain so that we can appreciate the freedom that we are going to have to fight to get back.

There is a new strain of Covid. Of course.

That means the lock downs must continue. Science and "Smart" people agree.

hombre म्हणाले...

“Armchair epidemiology?” That’s right, dear. There is no First Amendment, only science. Or is it scientism?

In a country where the rule of law abides. The question would be, “Is this a legitimate religion?” It would not be, “What do the scientists say?”

Joe Smith म्हणाले...

How many physicians on the Supreme Court again?

Gorsuch is correct, the government is picking winners and losers, which is a typical liberal approach to all things.

They shouldn't do that...

Of course, churches don't pay taxes or donate to political campaigns...

mxgreen म्हणाले...

I can't wait for the free speech cases.

Sam L. म्हणाले...

I trust NOTHING the NYT prints. Same goes for the WaPoo.

LA_Bob म्हणाले...

Matt Sablan said, "Notice how the more "conservative" a justice gets, the more likely they are to rely on nuance and disagree with each other..."

Great point. And nuance was supposed to reflect open-minded "liberal" thinking.

Of course, there are plenty of reasonable, nuanced liberals as well. Turley, Dershowitz, Greenwald, Althouse come to mind.

This is a very sad and messy issue. I'm a "Great Barrington Declaration" sympathizer, but I get that reasonable people can disagree over the need for and effectiveness of "restrictions". A national emergency like war would involve the same debate over "restrictions".

Thanks to Althouse for discussing Justice Gorsuch's sensible, legally-driven dissent.

LA_Bob म्हणाले...

DavidUW said, "I look forward to asking cops in California if they joined the force to patrol church attendance."

Please don't give them ideas. Living under a lightly-enforced stay-at-home order in LA County has really been pretty easy.

Achilles म्हणाले...

Matt Sablan said...

Notice how the more "conservative" a justice gets, the more likely they are to rely on nuance and disagree with each other on the the correct solution, while the further "left" you get, the more likely to get complete agreement. It happens in nearly every case, even ones with such an obviously right answer as this one (churches/religious services can't be singled out for special restrictions not given to other gatherings of similar size.)

I hope you are pointing out the obvious: "Conservative" justices are just validating the power grabs.

The "Nuance" only goes in one direction.

Less freedom.

They are enemies lying to a different group of people is all.

ACB is an enemy of freedom.

One of Trump's biggest failures.

Achilles म्हणाले...

hombre said...

“Armchair epidemiology?” That’s right, dear. There is no First Amendment, only science. Or is it scientism?

In a country where the rule of law abides. The question would be, “Is this a legitimate religion?” It would not be, “What do the scientists say?”


So is the government the arbiter of what a legitimate religion is?

Yancey Ward म्हणाले...

Roberts is going to find those who stay in the middle of the road get run over and killed.

There is no justification for the bans or the restrictions, and there never was. Full stop. The problem is that there is no limiting principle involved. All a governor has to do now is to declare a health emergency and he can basically control every aspect of your life. No one is to have such power in the United States.

DavidUW म्हणाले...

DavidUW said, "I look forward to asking cops in California if they joined the force to patrol church attendance."

Please don't give them ideas. Living under a lightly-enforced stay-at-home order in LA County has really been pretty easy.
>>
Sorry. I'm done being polite to the assholes in charge.
From the school boards to the cops, fuck them all.
If the cops don't like it, sign the recall. Tell the sheriff to not enforce. Stop just following orders like a fucking nazi.

My latest to the school board is a proposal to sell the school lands, rebate the taxpayers, and hire 100 zoom lecturers, the best in the country, while laying off every single school employee.

ending with "it's clear you love union money more than your own kids"
Fuck those assholes.

Joe Smith म्हणाले...

"So is the government the arbiter of what a legitimate religion is?"

For tax-exempt status, yes.

I mean, who the hell ever thought Scientology deserved tax-exempt status?

AZ Bob म्हणाले...

All this from unelected actors, "not accountable to the people." (citation omitted)(Roberts, C.J. concurring)

The above is from Kagan's dissent. Ironically, she is more than happy to dictate policy while retaining her lifetime appointment.

She wrote the line to take a swing at Roberts.

hombre म्हणाले...

Achilles: “So is the government the arbiter of what a legitimate religion is?”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court, not “the government,” is the arbiter of what qualifies a “religion” for First Amendment protection, hence “legitimate.” Your neighbor is free to make a sacred ritual of pissing on your rose garden, but the act is not entitled to Constitutional safeguarding.

n.n म्हणाले...

The majority of the transmission occurred at Planned Parent/hood, medical facilities, and under shelter in place orders with deceptive add-ons to allay liability claims. Viral spread and disease progression followed the same evolution in disparate jurisdictions irrespective of restrictive protocols.

Postoperative wound infections and surgical face masks: a controlled study

Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

Let's Make It Clear and Simple
Ivermectin
HCQ

The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro

New insights on the antiviral effects of chloroquine against coronavirus: what to expect for COVID-19?

The multiple molecular mechanisms by which chloroquine can achieve such results remain to be further explored. ... preliminary data indicate that chloroquine interferes with SARS-CoV-2 attempts to acidify the lysosomes and presumably inhibits cathepsins, which require a low pH for optimal cleavage of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein

Zn2+ Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase Activity In Vitro and Zinc Ionophores Block the Replication of These Viruses in Cell Culture

Denying and stigmatizing early, inexpensive, effective, low-risk treatments enhanced community spread, sustained exposure of the most vulnerable, and increased viral viability.

rehajm म्हणाले...

Instead of being concise and declarative when it comes to abuses of Constitution rights, it's always the same-

This one time in this one circumstance the specific wording of this particular law is somewhat problematic. We recommend this ever slight change and/or remand the case back to the lower court to take another look-see.


Mr Dog has it- it could have been one and done for this thread...

I fail to understand why civilization has become so terrified of the correct answer to every question. You'd still get to keep your corruption...

buster म्हणाले...

I don't thi k the criticism of ACB is fair. She didn't, lime Kagan, merely xecer to the "epidemiologists." She took seriously the question whether the prohibition on singing is a permissible restriction in the circumstances and said there is not enough evidence either way.

IG: @DudeKembro म्हणाले...

I'm a liberal California Democrat who agrees with the general outcome of this split ruling: our state restrictions have been too confusing, conflicting, and even arbitrary at times. I see no reason why churches should not be able to operate indoors at 25% capacity and following mask and distancing guidelines.

The problem here is in the sloppy reasoning, again from Gorsuch. It mirrors the embrassingly dishonest sloppiness of the Kavanaugh's now-infamous Pennsylvania vote ruling from last year.

Gorsuch's argument about unequal treatment of religion is fact-free bunk: California imposed the same restrictions on gyms, political meetings, lectures, concerts, clubs, dance parties. These are secular gatherings, some also explicitly protected by constitutional gaurantees of free speech and free assembly.

Indoor church services were included in this group because epidemiologists singled out this whole group as especially superspreafing not because of hostility to religion by California officials, a pathetically paranoid and self-pitying grievance-peddling lie that thankfully the other conservative judges declined to co-sign.

To the extent that California officials have been deferential to epidemiologists, that's for California voters to adjudicate and second-guess (see recall effort, Gavin Newsom). It's not appropriate for the Supreme Court to do that second-guessing for us.

The unequal treatment here is that this illegitimate Apartheid Court seeks to implement Catholic Sharia in America, creating unprecedented special Christian exemptions to laws everyone else has to abide by.

By the way, real Christians know that where any two are gathered in His name, God is in the midst. The idea that you have to have indoor church services to practice Christianity is nonsense. It's unsurprising the fake Christians in the GQP don't get it.

Joe Smith म्हणाले...

Dear unknown moron. Our hostess explains Gorsuch's opinion and even quotes from it.

What don't you understand about unequal treatment?

Churches are closed but movie and TV studios are free to keep operating indoors.

This is 3rd grade stuff here, but try to keep up.

As for 'Catholic Sharia,' you sound like another bigoted asshole commentator here.

Now insult the Muslims, and post your real name.

tommyesq म्हणाले...

Unrelated to the post, admittedly, but I am curious as to what spurs the use of the "click for more" feature - there was only one more paragraph, and this post didn't strike me as overlong?

Amadeus 48 म्हणाले...

Anyone that isn't alarmed by the overreach of many US governors during this "emergency" isn't paying attention.

We can imagine many future situations where, following an extended propaganda campaign, some incident is used as an excuse to exercise police powers that destroy the fundamental relationship between the people and the governed. For example, the jamokes and poltroons that constitute our government functionaries would be only too willing to destroy the Bill of Rights in the name of anthropogenic climate change.

It is time to elect some new "leaders" who understand and believe in limiting the powers of government.

KellyM म्हणाले...

Unknown said...
"By the way, real Christians know that where any two are gathered in His name, God is in the midst. The idea that you have to have indoor church services to practice Christianity is nonsense. It's unsurprising the fake Christians in the GQP don't get it."

The more accurate paraphrase would have been “when two or more are gathered”. That might be splitting hairs but in this day of Karens dropping a dime on their neighbors, do you really think a few pals are going to get together for Bible study?

In times of social or political upheaval, there is a great need to come together to worship as well as for support and community. Being Catholic, I am required to attend Mass on a weekly basis. It is a foundational part of my faith. No Mass, no Eucharist. (If it wasn’t such a big deal, then the Bishops wouldn't have issued a general dispensation and suspension of our obligation.)

And not all gyms were under the same imposition. Certain gyms here in San Francisco, mostly frequented by those in City and County positions were still able to remain open, with no loss of services to their clients. Yet, a gym servicing the general public two blocks away is forced to remain shut. Rules for thee but not for me.

Indoor church services were/are specifically targeted so as to keep people from their community support system, locked up, isolated and fearful, and ultimately starve the churches into bankruptcy and closure. Wouldn't want people to talk amongst themselves and see that the whole operation was merely political theatre. Any why are secular gatherings any more explicitly protected with guarantees of free speech and assembly than churches? My rights are only valid in Safeway but not St. Mary’s?

DJK म्हणाले...

Dear Joe QAnon Smith...

Unsurprising your comment doesn't address anything I actually wrote, and insteads ends as it begins: with childish insults and angry, fact-free name-calling. The QOP has nothing else to offer but this kind of immature hostility: that's why Georgia, Arizona, the White House, Senate, and House are now blue. Even educated and suburban whites who were once Republican are sick of you nasty, bitter, radical right Trumpanzee lowlifes.

What part of "Gorsuch's 'unequal treatment' lie is such bunk that even other conservative justices in the majority didn't agree with it" don't you understand? Are you as illiterate and "poorly educated" as Tangerine Hitler says you are?

"Churches are closed..." And, again, so are gyms, schools, clubs, political meetings, concert venues, etc. Which means, no, religious institutions are not being singled out. They're just not. I already gave you a list of all the entities closed in California -- do you have trouble reading, or what is wrong with you exactly?

The TV/movie studio comparison is stupid. They are required (by their insurance companies) to follow strenuous special protocols like all business operations that have not been identified by epidemiologists as especially superspreading -- protocols like rigorous multiweek testing for everyone on set. Gorsuch doesn't know that because he's not an epidemiologist and that's exactly why should not be substituting his paranoid victim-playing opinion for those of Calufornia scientists.

Now keep showing why sane Americans have made sure your unhinged, extremist #MAGATerror party is out of power and having a meltdown. You are Exhibit A on everything wrong with the right.

DJK म्हणाले...

"Indoor church services were/are specifically targeted so as to keep people from their community support system, locked up, isolated and fearful, and ultimately starve the churches into bankruptcy and closure."

Paranoid, unhinged, fact-and-evidence-free lunacy. All too common of today's QAnon cult conservatism, and the kind of desperate, grievance-peddling immaturity that has distracted conservatives from real issues (healthcare, education, infrastructure, climate, etc) to the point they are facing a generation in the wilderness.

Epidemiologists long ago identified a list of indoor activities that were especially superspreading, and indoor church services were on that list along with a number of other non-religious indoor activities and gatherings. The evangelical right just loves to play the victim card, which 1) is not conservative behavior and 2) has alienated voters who used to be attracted to the right's refusal of whining victimhood narratives (like I once was, before conservatives went full crybaby).

Again, the issue of whether California authorities have used that list properly, and whether they have engaged in hypocritical behavior at times (they have), is a matter for California taxpayers to handle, and we will. It doesn't make true Gorsuch's sloppy lies about nonexistent unequal treatment of indoor church services -- lies that other conservatives justices refuted in their own concurring opinions, to their honor and credit.