Supreme Court sides with religious groups in covid fight

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/26/politics/supreme-court-religious-restrictions-ruling-covid/index.html

I'm all for freedoms but in a pandemic, I dont want people going to places of worship and spreading the disease. Absolutely disgusting. At the very least this should be a decision left to the states to decide and not the federal government. Leave everything up to the individual states.

Hopefully biden starts packing the Supreme Court. The courts can be conservative or liberal, but never religious and always pro science. Add 2 more seats to Supreme Court and nominate scientists to fill them.

Never religious? That's somebody's right and freedom.

I'm not religious myself but damn who cares about their health.

I suppose this comes down to what you’d deem to be essential services, and I tend towards the belief, for many people (especially in a time of crisis) this constitutes it. Many need this.

I’m atheist myself but I’m not all that bothered by this. Hopefully precautions will be put in place.

Good. Governors are getting outrageous with their dumb rules regarding people seeing their families.

It's expected for members of the Islamic State United States to put religion above scientific knowledge.

Free men generally do not like being told they can not do something. There has to be a compromise somewhere in between the all or nothing variety of opinions we see from the governing bodies and those resisting.

Why are we still trying to protect people from themselves? It was different at the beginning when the virus was new and nobody knew how to protect themselves, but we’re 9 months in. Training wheels are off.

Anyone who is especially at-risk should already be isolating themselves, and if the at-risk old people that typically fill up churches want to kill themselves, have at it. More future social security and Medicare for me.

Even if you don't care about these people, Covid patients take up hospital beds and medical supplies. When hospitals are full and doctors are busy dealing with the pandemic, more people start dying of non-Covid issues (like heart attacks). So...the "let people congegate and get infected" approach has unfortunate consequences for sensible people as well.

Also, at-risk people can't just stay isolated forever. The US still seems to be in its first wave after nine months of doing nothing about Covid, so how many years will they have to isolate before it's safe to go out again?

A victory for individual liberty over the nanny state. Good.

The constitution doesn't become irrelevant because you're scared.

But none of that happened, did it? Hospitals were never overflowing with Covid patients as predicted. In fact, due to people not visiting the hospital for other concerns, many became empty.

You people can't pray in your homes or outside or something?

If people were smart enough to not congregate, and instead listen to common sense, the nanny state wouldn't be necessary. But unfortunately people take their privileges for granted and do stupid stuff like go to church, and now they need to be saved from themselves.

If people hate the nanny state so much, then they should stop doing things that call for it to exist.

@Planeforger: Vaccine is coming. They won’t have to isolate forever.

I would have a completely different opinion if this were something like MERS-COV. It isn’t. It’s way worse than the flu, not denying it’s killing hundreds of thousands of mostly old people, but if they don’t care about protecting themselves why would I care? This ruling doesn’t force them into churches. It allows them into them.

Honestly I don't know why Americans are so selfish and anti intellectual.

Justices lift New York’s COVID-related attendance limits on worship services

The Supreme Court late Wednesday night granted requests from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and two Orthodox Jewish synagogues to block enforcement of a New York executive order restricting attendance at houses of worship. Both the diocese and the synagogues claimed that the executive order violated the right to the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment, particularly when secular businesses in the area are allowed to remain open. Wednesday’s orders by a closely divided Supreme Court, which had turned down two similar requests over the summer by churches in California and Nevada, represented a clear rightward shift on the court since Justice Amy Coney Barrett replaced Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in September.

Five conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Barrett – sided with the religious groups and blocked the attendance limits. Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, issued the executive order at the center of both disputes in October. As part of the state’s effort to combat COVID-19, the executive order and an initiative that it implements identify clusters of COVID-19 cases and then take action to prevent the virus from spreading. An area immediately around a cluster is known as a “red” zone, where attendance at worship services is limited to 10 people. The area around a “red” zone is known as an “orange” zone; attendance at worship services there is limited to 25 people. “Yellow” zones surround “orange” zones; attendance there is limited to 50% of the building’s maximum capacity.

The diocese went to the Supreme Court on Nov. 12, asking the justices to block the attendance limits after the lower courts declined to do so. It told the Supreme Court that as a practical matter, the order “effectively bars in-person worship at affected churches – a ‘devastating’ and ‘spiritually harmful’ burden on the Catholic community.”

The synagogues followed on Nov. 16. They stressed that although they have complied with previous COVID-19 rules, the restrictions imposed by Cuomo’s order preclude them from conducting services for all of their congregants, and they argued that Cuomo’s order targeted Orthodox Jewish communities because other Orthodox Jews had not complied with the rules.

Cuomo pushed back last week, responding that the restrictions on attendance no longer apply to the churches and synagogues, which are in areas that are now designated as yellow zones. But in any event, Cuomo told the justices, the order isn’t focused on gatherings because they are religious, but because of the possibility that they could be “superspreader” events. If anything, Cuomo added, the order treats religious gatherings more favorably than secular events – such as plays and concerts – that involve similar risks.

In an unsigned opinion in the Catholic diocese case that also applies to the synagogues’ case, the five-member majority blocked the state from enforcing the attendance limits while the challengers continue to litigate the issue at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and, if necessary, return to the Supreme Court for a final decision on the merits. The court explained that Cuomo’s order does not appear to be neutral, but instead “single[s] out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.” For example, although a synagogue or a church in a red zone is limited to 10 people at a service, there are no limits on how many people a nearby “essential” business – which can include acupuncture or a camp ground – can admit.

Because the Cuomo order is not neutral, the court continued, it is subject to the most stringent constitutional test, known as strict scrutiny. It fails that test, the court concluded, because the order is too broad. There is no evidence that these synagogues and churches have contributed to outbreaks, and other, less restrictive rules could have been employed instead – such as basing the maximum attendance on the size of the facility. And if the restrictions are enforced, the court added, they will result in permanent harm to people who cannot attend and for whom a livestream of services is not an adequate substitute.

The court’s opinion in the two cases was released a few minutes before midnight on the night before Thanksgiving.

Gorsuch filed a short, separate opinion in which he emphasized that “[e]ven if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical.”

Kavanaugh filed his own opinion, stressing that Wednesday’s ruling from the court is only a temporary one until the 2nd Circuit, which is scheduled to hear argument in the dispute next month, can act on the case, followed – if necessary – by a decision on the merits by the justices.

Kavanaugh also pushed back on a point at the heart of a dissenting opinion filed by Roberts, who acknowledged that the restrictions in these cases “may well” violate the free exercise clause but maintained that the court did not need to decide that “serious and difficult question” now because the attendance limits no longer apply to the challengers. Kavanaugh countered that there is “no good reason” not to act now. If the houses of worship challenging the restrictions do not return to red or orange zones, he observed, then the court’s rulings “will impose no harm on the State and have no effect on the State’s response to COVID–19.” But if they do end up back in red or orange zones, the rulings will ensure that they are not subject to unconstitutional treatment.

Breyer filed his own dissenting opinion, which Sotomayor and Kagan joined. They agreed with Roberts that there is no need for the court to act now. But in any event, Breyer added, because of what we know about how the virus is transmitted, particularly when it comes to the increased risk of transmission at indoor activities at which people are in close contact with one another for extended periods of time, the question whether the attendance limits violate the Constitution is “far from clear.”

Sotomayor also filed a separate dissenting opinion, which Kagan joined. In her view, the challengers’ cases were “easier” than last summer’s challenges by churches in California and Nevada to shut-down orders and attendance limits because Cuomo’s order treats houses of worship more favorably than comparable secular gatherings. In a pointed rebuttal to Gorsuch’s opinion, Sotomayor agreed that states “may not discriminate against religious institutions, even when faced with a crisis as deadly as this one. But those principles,” she stressed, “are not at stake today.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First off, I don't attend church, so no need to refer to "you people" when replying to me.

You talk of common sense. According to the CDC data, we have 12,498,734 cases in the US, and 259,005 deaths. Using simple arithmetic (math is not even needed for such simple calculations) that means you have a 97.93% chance of living if you catch it. Given a US population of 331 million, your odds of even catching the virus are 3.8%.

For some of us, these odds do not justify violating the first amendment, or depriving citizens of their individual liberty.

If you have underlying conditions that make you worry about your safety, then by all means isolate and take precautions. But allow the rest of us to assess our risks and make our choices as we see fit.

Your logic of "well, if you would just do as we say, we wouldn't have to spank you" is the way parent's treat their children. US citizens should not be treated like children.

That would have been the intelligent play from day 1. We knew from the beginning it wasn't very dangerous to most people, but those with serious health issues, or over 65 years old were at heightened risk. We could have just as easily taken extra precautions with those at risk and let the rest of society function as normal. That'd have saved us a lot of suicide and drug overdose deaths that have occurred because of these senseless, all encompassing lockdowns. Doing "as they say" got a lot of people killed, wrecked the economy, caused millions to do their jobs, and didn't save anyone who wouldn't have been saved from more reasonable precautions.

It's absolutely laughable that the people responsible for that colossal fuckup on the left demands we suspend constitutional rights and personal liberties as they continue to **** things up.

"Take their privileges for granted". Rights are not privileges.

Practicing religion is now a privilege?

Those are all fair points, but it ignores one crucial fact: this isn't about the people who will be OK, it's about the people who won't be. We need to do our part to help out people that are at risk.

Yes, most of us will be fine. But the fact is if we are exposed and brush it off as the flu, then go around and talk to people, we are spreading it around and indirectly harming people that are not so fortunate to have youth and health on their side.

You folks using our "rights and liberties" as an excuse to not wear a mask are frankly taking those rights and liberties for granted. The constitution is not your mom's skirt, something to run to and hide behind every time you get indignant. Sorry but seeing as how 2 out of 100 people die from this disease, we need to take some corrective measures.

You can keep your guns, pot has been legalized in like five more states, you can say what you want essentially anywhere, there's no marshal law (unless you're protesting, but hey, liberty for some and not for all, right? American hypocrisy), and no one is quarantining you at home and delivering you rations. Trump, who has trampled on Democracy for years, is soon to be out of office. Stop complaining about your "freedoms", you don't have anything to complain about.

We are freer now than we were at the start of COVID, despite illusions misleading us to say otherwise.

They are both. For starters, we are privileged to have such rights, and privileges are by definition special rights.

If we started viewing them as such, this country would probably be a lot better. Start appreciating them more.

Like "Hey, I'm so thankful I can say what I want, but I won't say things simply 'because I can' because that'd be a total abuse of this privilege-right I have"...there'd certainly be less assholes if this was the case.

As I have clearly stated, extra precautions with those who are at high risk. You don't walk into a nursing home even with the flu because if it spreads, people are going to die. Simple meaasures, and additional care could have easily been given to those places. There is absolutely no reason for any wannabe dictator of a governor to try to ban the basic constitutional rights of entire groups of people. But certain governors just have to feel powerful, to feel like they're in control and the people under them are suffering the most across the board.

I am glad the Supreme Court actually sided with the constitution, and protected the rights of all citizens from governors attempting to violate them.

@mrbojangles25: At least this stance has some semblance of sense behind it. The anti mask argument comes from the same people who would blow a gasket if someone walked around the mall without pants, and it blows my mind.

@eoten: Limiting extra precautions only for those at high risk doesn't work because it's highly contagious and those at high risk have interactions with those who are low risk. Like in cybersecurity, you have to limit your attack vectors - at least enough to get r0 at or below 1.

you do realize that extre precautions for those the most at risk would also include limiting interactions with those at high risk. Assistance in nursing homes would be tested on a regular basis, be given the masks that actually work (rather than the face panties most people wear that do not). It would have been much easier to do than to try to tell everyone to stay home... when those people still have to do things like go to the store and buy food. A complete lockdown is statistically impossible to achieve, and in the desperate effort to try to force it on people we've ended up in a situation as bad as no precautions taken at all. Again, stupid "leadership" in certain states are at blame here.

Trying to argue that locking down the entirety of society to protect a few is more effective than locking down those few themselves isn't a winning argument. It's just mental gymnastics to justify the highly destructive actions proposed by leftwing media, and not actually based in any kind of reality.

Exactly. We all have to do our part. This isn't as simple as "you do your thing, I'll do my thing".

We are all related, everything is intertwined.

Well then you should know it's impossible, if not completely idiotic to assume a full scale lockdown would ever be successful, and any attempt to do so completely ignored more reasonable measures that could have yielded better results with less damage as well. But, this is irrelevant, the Supreme Court was exactly correct in this case. The constitution supersedes the authority of government. A governor, legislatures, even the president cannot give the orders that the people in question had attempted to give. The supreme court did not rule with opinion or emotion, just the factual reality of what is written in law.

That is what judges are supposed to do.

Disagree without being disagreeable. It's not difficult.

-

On point, I'm actually more surprised this was a 5-4 decision and not a 9-0 decision, free exercise clause is pretty clear. I'll peruse through the dissenting opinions.

It really should have been 9-0 and the fact four people sitting on the Supreme Court sided AGAINST the constitution they are sworn to protect is concerning. The bill of right supersedes the authority of any law, order, or decree. It doesn't get put on hold when someone is scared. I am very thankful RBG is no longer on that Supreme Court or it'd have just given governors free reign to do whatever the hell they want.

It is difficult, though, when the people you are debating with want to indirectly harm or kill people because they can't see any further than their own discomfort at wearing a mask or they miss going out to their favorite restaurant.

How is one not supposed to take that personally? How am I not supposed to take it personal when people take our rights for granted?

Good! It's ridiculous how they've been treated. Meanwhile, pot shops, booz stores, etc are open for business!

Drugs and alcohol have significant and positive impact on mood, outlook, and so on. Also I don't think anyone get's COVID (provided they're following protocol) by picking up a bottle of tequilla or a few grams of cannabis.

Church, on the other hand, has been responsible for numerous outbreaks and deaths. Prayer can be done at home as easily as in a church. Or, if you must gather, outside on some nice lawn or something.

I haven't seen any churches linked to Covid. Not saying they haven't, but I haven't seen it. Were those churches practicing social distancing? I'll tell you all the masses I've attended in doors have had people social distancing with masks.

And no, practicing your religion at home is no where near the same as practicing at an actual church.

Also, drugs and alcohol have a positive impact on mood? Ok....just gonna disagree there haha

Show me someone against the overreaches of government that are against them because they want to harm and kill people? You don't think that maybe, just maybe there's another reason why someone may be against.. oh I don't know, banning church services? Listen, just because you're scared doesn't mean the rights of others get put on pause.

Come on dude. Drugs and alcohol can and often do have a negative impact on mood, hence why suicides happen when one has used either/or/both. As well some people do get a positive impact from practicing their faith.

It's hard for me to complain about religious services being allowed when you have bars, restaurants, gyms etc open. That's putting the economy over safety. So which is important?

Why are bars open?

My impression from here is that the people who usually goes to the gym takes more precautions than those going to bars. I don't think 1 of the 30K cases we have had has been linked to going to the gym. There are however bars that had to close due to so many cases being traced back to those places.

Not to mention that it seems like every day we hear about another government official not obeying the rules they want to enforce on the rest of us.

Restrictions for thee, but not for me. Hypocrites.

Yes! 100% yes!

Because people cried.

Sounds like they need a therapists. :P

It would seem like those demanding we make big changes, cause you know, it's super serious, do not truly believe so off camera.

In related news, here's Phil Scott directing VT educators to get kids to rat out parents who dare to have people over for Thanksgiving

Didn't the Nazis do something like that? Have a program set up to reward people for ratting out others to the government?

@eoten: All countries, democratic or fascist, have that. In the US, ratting people to the government tends to get you a lower sentence.

Be happy this is to protect people and not to kill them.

Says you. Manipulating peoples children to be used as a weapon against their parents is fucking disgusting on all levels. That is completely different than someone actually being arrested for a crime getting a lower sentence for ratting out their accomplices. First off, their parents aren't committing any crime, secondly, neither has the child.

Lol, how piss poor is the US doing with COVID?
Your statement very much reflects that - less than no idea...

Reminds me of the wonderful 1980's mini series V.

Better than the UK and Belgium ;-).