NY Times: Why, Yes, The Supreme Court’s Decision Does Put The First Amendment First

Let’s not forget, the Constitution is really laying out what the specific duties of  the federal government are, and why lines they may not cross. The 1st Amendment lays out more of what the Government may not do. There was no exception because people were eating bats in a wet market in China (or, more likely, screwing around with diseases in a poorly secured facility)

Cuomo Attacks Supreme Court, but Virus Ruling Is Warning to Governors

As the coronavirus pandemic has deepened and darkened in recent months, the nation’s governors have taken increasingly aggressive steps to curb the current surge of infections, with renewed and expanded restrictions reaching into people’s homes, businesses, schools and places of worship.

Many of these rules, often enacted by Democratic officials and enforced through curfews, closures and capacity limits, have been resisted by some members of the public, but largely upheld by the courts.

Late Wednesday night, though, the U.S. Supreme Court forcefully entered the arena, signaling that it was willing to impose new constraints on executive and emergency orders during the pandemic, at least where constitutional rights are affected.

In a 5-4 decision, the court struck down an order by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo that had restricted the size of religious gatherings in certain areas of New York where infection rates were climbing. The governor had imposed 10- and 25-person capacity limits on churches and other houses of worship in those areas.

New restraints? No. Old freedoms for The People.

The decision seemed to signal that some governmental efforts to stem the pandemic had overreached, impinging on protected freedoms in the name of public health. If unconstrained religious observance and public safety were sometimes at odds, as the governor and other public officials maintained, the court ruled that religious freedom should win out.

As it should be. The federal Constitution and NY state constitution do not discuss saving people from making bad decisions. Even decisions that could lead to their deaths. We don’t stop them from climbing mountains or smoking or drinking (well, have to be of age for last two). We don’t make them have some sort of contraption to keep them from falling while taking a shower. I bet you’re thinking of lots of examples right now. We do stop the Government from interfering with our 1st Amendment Rights, though.

Mr. Cuomo accused the court of partisanship, suggesting the ruling reflected the influence of the three conservative justices who have been nominated by President Trump in the past four years.

“You have a different court, and I think that was the statement that the court was making,” Mr. Cuomo, a third-term Democrat, said on Thursday. “We know who he appointed to the court. We know their ideology.”

Hey, everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. Perhaps, though, Cuomo should take a gander at his own Constitution (though, the Progressives did manage to modify Article I Section 3 to perhaps allow these offenses against religion).

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. noted in a dissenting opinion that none of the governor’s most strict restrictions were currently in force. While the governor’s capacity limits on houses of worship might have violated the First Amendment, Justice Roberts wrote that it was not necessary for the court “to rule on that serious and difficult question at this time.”

“The Governor might reinstate the restrictions. But he also might not,” Justice Roberts wrote, saying it is “a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials.”

But of course Roberts took this road. One of the worst picks for the court by a Republican ever. A real Conservative would have backstopped the Rights of citizens 100%

Critics of the court’s decision contended that Mr. Cuomo’s actions had not infringed on religious freedom and that the Supreme Court’s ruling could have dangerous public health consequences.

“The freedom to worship is one of our most cherished fundamental rights, but it does not include a license to harm others or endanger public health,” said Daniel Mach, the director for the American Civil Liberties Union’s freedom of religion and belief program.

Actually, it does. Because, let’s say I have chicken pox as a kid, and you decide to be near me to get it so that you will become immune, that’s on us. The Bill of Rights doesn’t give Government permission to abrogate our Rights for Reasons.

Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, executive vice president of Agudath Israel of America, an ultra-Orthodox umbrella group which had also sued to overturn the rules, called the decision historic, saying it “will ensure that religious practices and religious institutions will be protected from government edicts.”

Exactly. I’m betting the Court might have been a little more caring of Cuomo’s point of view had he not allowed all the violent protests and such.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

24 Responses to “NY Times: Why, Yes, The Supreme Court’s Decision Does Put The First Amendment First”

  1. Est1950 says:

    Speaking of the law.

    People on the left who laugh at Trump’s lawyers for saying certain things must not realize a very important point.

    Bringing a frivolous lawsuit to the courts can get a lawyer disbarred. Saying things publicly that is not true can get you disbarred. Especially saying things that accuses the other side of a crime that is not true can land a lawyer in jail.

    This is being taken seriously by the democrats behind the MSM facade of laughing at more conspiracy theories(the lefts favorite deflection). That is why in high profile cases you rarely see lawyers giving news conferences and if they do they never discuss the facts of the case but rather deal in generalities.

    The fact Trump’s team holds hundreds if not 1000’s of affidavits is enough evidence for me to at least listen to what they have to say. Judges are now coming to the same conclusions. Democratic judges are being inundated by EVIDENCE to the point they are giving Trump’s team the time in court to listen to the evidence they have in hand.

    Affidavits are evidence. These are sworn statements with the simple fact that if the person is lying it is a felony punishable by a huge fine and imprisonment. Trump’s team purports to have video evidence as well. Any judge no matter how partisan must look at this “mountain” of evidence.

    So when Trump’s lawyers are speaking or holding news conferences putting this stuff out there, these are not to be taken lightly which is what the MSM and the left is doing.

    These are crimes if they are lying or in fact do not have evidence. This is why Tucker Carlson is a fool and he should know these things. I was incensed that he pulled the stunt he did about Powell having all this evidence as if it was her duty to come on his show and lay it all out.

    Making one slip of the tongue on a talk show could land her in prison and if Tucker the Dumb shit Carlson doesn’t understand the basic tenets of the law then he is a fool. Rush Limbaugh has joined the same thought process and again I would remind Mr. Limbaugh that demanding the evidence on your show is tantamount to setting a Michael Flynn FBI entrapment case and no lawyer is going to take that bait and then go to jail for the rest of their lives.

    I tell you having worked alongside the press for 5 decades I am beside myself at how inept the press has become no matter which side they purport to represent.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Can you give examples of attorneys landing in prison for making a slip of a tongue on a talk show?

      Have the trump attorneys alleged fraud in court yet?

      trump and his legal team have publicly claimed election fraud was committed in state after state.

      Most of the affidavits were probably not false. If a “watcher” claims they weren’t as close as they believed they should be, that’s neither false nor a reason to give the state to trump. One affidavit claimed the watcher believed that Biden was receiving more votes from the military than expected, again not false, but also not supporting a claim of fraud.

      The argument that a lawyer would not mislead the public because it would harm the lawyer’s reputation isn’t that applicable to a Ghouliani or Sid. Conservalawyers will always find clients.

      trump has enabled the transition process to commence; he has said he will vacate the premises if the electoral college votes in Mr Biden’s favor. The trump strategy is to cry 2020 fraud to his grave. It is just not in his constitution to admit failure.

      • formwiz says:

        Can you give examples of attorneys landing in prison for making a slip of a tongue on a talk show?

        Can you say it never happened?

        Have the trump attorneys alleged fraud in court yet?

        Yes, they have. All your claptrap about no evidence is as dead as it always has been.

        Most of the affidavits were probably not false. If a “watcher” claims they weren’t as close as they believed they should be, that’s neither false nor a reason to give the state to trump. One affidavit claimed the watcher believed that Biden was receiving more votes from the military than expected, again not false, but also not supporting a claim of fraud.

        The argument that a lawyer would not mislead the public because it would harm the lawyer’s reputation isn’t that applicable to a Ghouliani or Sid. Conservalawyers will always find clients.

        Your stupidity is fit only for a Democrat.

        Trump has enabled the transition process to commence; he has said he will vacate the premises if the electoral college votes in Mr Biden’s favor. The trump strategy is to cry 2020 fraud to his grave. It is just not in his constitution to admit failure.

        No, all he dud was to protect the GSA.

        Can’s wait until you start crying when he’s’s inaugurated for a second term.

        You’ll be cryying in March ’23.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Can you give examples of attorneys landing in prison for making a slip of a tongue on a talk show?
          Can you say it never happened?

          So no, no examples of attorneys landing in prison for making a slip of the tongue on a talk show? Got it.

          Have the trump attorneys alleged fraud in court yet? Yes, they have.

          That’s a lie, of course.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Still no examples of attorneys landing in prison for making a slip of a tongue on a talk show?

      • Est1950 says:

        From the American Bar Association.

        Everyone knows that lawyers are not allowed to lie — to clients, courts or third parties. But once you get beyond deliberate false statements, the scope of the obligations to truth and integrity become less clear. What about reckless and negligent statements that are false?

        Well declaring that entire election in certain states are wrought with Fraud would certainly fall under Reckless and negligent statements that are false.

        Rule 8.4. Misconduct
        It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
        (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct,
        knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of
        another;
        (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty,
        trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
        (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
        misrepresentation;
        (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of
        justice;***

        Have any attorneys gone to jail for lying to a talk show host? I don’t know. probably not since what attorney bringing a suit would GO ON A TALK SHOW IN THE FIRST PLACE?

        The argument that a lawyer would not mislead the public because it would harm the lawyer’s reputation isn’t that applicable to a Ghouliani or Sid. Conservalawyers will always find clients.

        Your point is not applicable here. They will always find work as long as they conduct themselves according to the law.

  2. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    The new, reactionary Supreme Court concludes that indeed, the Constitution IS a suicide pact.

    • gitarcarver says:

      …..Supreme Court concludes that indeed, the Constitution IS a suicide pact.

      The Court reasoned that the churches and synagogues were being singled out for treatment as far as number of people in a given area.

      This section of the decision is telling:

      These categorizations lead to troubling results. At the hearing in the District Court, a health department official testified about a large store in Brooklyn that could “literally have hundreds of people shopping there on any given day.” App. to Application in No. 20A87, Exh. D, p. 83. Yet a nearby church or synagogue would be prohibited from allowing more than 10 or 25 people inside for a worship service. And the Governor has stated that factories and schools have contributed to the spread of COVID–19, id., Exh. H, at 3; App. to Application in No. 20A90, pp. 98, 100, but they are treated less harshly than the Diocese’s churches and Agudath Israel’s synagogues, which have admirable safety records.

      [….]

      Finally, it has not been shown that granting the applications will harm the public. As noted, the State has not claimed that attendance at the applicants’ services has resulted in the spread of the disease. And the State has not shown that public health would be imperiled if less restrictive measures were imposed.

      It was clear that the state was singling out religious institutions without foundation which is a violation of the 1st and 14th Amendment.

      It should also be noted that this was not a close decision. While the actual tally was 5 judges for lifting the injunction and 4 against it, of the four dissents, three were based on the idea that the appellants were no longer in “purple” or “orange” designated areas which meant the regulations as applying to them were moot. The three justices agreed with the majority if the regulations still applied. That means the decision was 8-1 overall on principle.

      The left leaning state of New York attacked religious institutions with restrictions because they hate them.

      After all, all the left has is hate.

    • formwiz says:

      Jeffery starts his wailing.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        It may not have been as clear cut as the reactionaries think. After all four justices, including the conservative Chief Justice, disagreed.

        After all, all the reactionaries have is hate.

        • gitarcarver says:

          After all four justices, including the conservative Chief Justice, disagreed.

          Four justices disagreed as to whether the case should be decided as the restrictions were no longer in place. They did not disagree with the conclusion the majority agreed to.

          Even though this was said earlier, some people on the left have decided that any facts that are presented that disagree with what they believe must be hateful.

          Because after all, all the left has is hate.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        After all, all the reactionaries have is hate.

        Their hate often blinds them to arithmetic.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Sibley starts his sucking.

    • Dana says:

      Many people have argued that allowing Islam in this country is a suicidal idea; should we infer that you think the First Amendment’s protection of our freedom of religion could and should take a back seat to things which could kill us? After all, that would mean it’s up to whomever happens to be President or Governor or whatever to decide which religions are dangerous.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        On 9/11, some 3000 Americans died at the hands of 19 mostly Saudi Islamic terrorists and the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, costing the lives of nearly 7000 American soldiers, 100s of thousands injured and a few trillion dollars. Congress gave us the Patriot Act, DHS, NSA and endless gov’t snooping into emails, telephone calls and financial transactions. The reactionary right found all this super-fine and wanted to ban Islam.

        Since Feb 2020 over 260,000 Americans have died from Covid-19, the virus is still spreading rapidly, killing over 1000 Americans each day, and we’ve been asked to sacrifice for our fellow Americans by wearing masks, washing our hands and gathering in groups smaller than 10, 25 or 50. The reactionary right finds these actions to be an affront to freedom.

    • Dana says:

      Of course, if the esteemed Mr Dowd actually understood the ruling, he would know that what the Court actually did was say that New York could not treat religion both differently and more restrictively than liquor stores, bodegas and bowling alleys. The Court did not decide on the merits of the case, but granted injunctive relief from restrictions which did great harm to the plaintiffs. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals still has to rule on the constitutional claims made by the plaintiffs, and, if there is an appeal to the Supreme Court, a potential Supreme Court ruling.

      The Chief Justice, in his dissent, at least implied that his vote might have been different on the merits in a constitutional claim than it has been on the injunctive relief requests. That was something I found truly strange: he was willing to consider that the plaintiffs had a constitutional claim, but wanted to push off hearing that, probably for months, with a decision announced next June, meaning that he was willing to see their constitutional rights denied until then. The only reason I can see for that was a hope that, with the vaccines, COVID-19 would have been conquered by then, and the Court wouldn’t have to decide the issue at all.

  3. Jl says:

    The new, reactionary Supreme Court concludes that indeed, the 1st Amendment is still part of the Constitution. But it’s funny we haven’t heard of a Dem mayor restricting, say, rioting in certain parts of their cities where cases may be high. I’m sure it was just an over-sight…

  4. Jl says:

    Too funny to pass up-the SCOTUS rules in favor of individual liberty over government intervention, so our resident Drama Queen terms it as “reactionary”.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Our resident science denier doesn’t know what reactionary means.

      reactionary: adjective

      re·​ac·​tion·​ary | \ rē-ˈak-shə-ˌner-ē \

      : relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction
      especially : ultraconservative in politics

  5. Jl says:

    Our yet to offer any “science” commenter describes all “reactionaries”, whoever and whatever they are, as only being filled with hate. Just like with “dire global warming’, this description comes with zero evidence.

  6. Jl says:

    After all, J still hasn’t offered any proof. Come on, J, show us! Good luck

Bad Behavior has blocked 13199 access attempts in the last 7 days.