I'm seeing some obedient sheeps cry about how "This is irresponsible, nobody takes the coronavirus seriously, This is all going to lead to disaster!!!1111"
The dissents seem to all argue that since the State is currently not doing what it is charged with that the court cant act until then. Terrible behavior.
Sotomayor believes that the 1st Amendment says –“States may not discriminate against religious institutions” but its ok to limit church attendance? “Right of the people peaceable to assemble”? “prohibiting the free exercise”?
Roberts now believes that “officials” that “Guard and Protect” are appointed by the Constitution and allowed to violate it?
Of concern to me is Gorsuch and Kavanaugh seem to be open to some type of limit a government can place on religious attendance. They only seem to say the number picked is too much. Also that if you equally discriminate against religion and secular then it is ok.
Hypothetically, if there’s a religion based around child rape, I think we can all recognize that as a criminal group and treat it accordingly. But on the stuff like the virus it’s not easy to classify such things in a manner that won’t be abused to harass an innocent religious group minding its own business.. so I’m with you.
That said, I think there are some limits on rights that make sense (though not the ridiculous limit that Dems are calling for). I think 2A = human rights. However, the state prevents violent felons from registering guns.. and that’s probably on balance good for the institution of gun ownership. If Joe the paroled bank robber gets picked up with a hidden piece, he’s off the street and hopefully not robbing any more. Likewise, I think our understanding of allowable weapons is more or less right (modern, magazine fed firearms capable of matching what the government might bring to our door to confiscate our stuff). I wouldn’t want my neighbor playing around with stinger missiles if I could help it... he might obliterate my house with one trigger pull.
That’s not a perfect example and it gets muddy, I know.
If people wish to live in risk that is up to them. Risk of infection or having neighbours with Cannon. If you dont like neighbours with cannon,, we can move. We can also not go to Church. But it is not the place of government to tell us when we can peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. No exception or slippery slope. Dont want Covid, dont go to church and let the rest of us participate in the great Chicken Pox Party so we can get immunity.
Murder is against the law. If your religion has murder as part of its process, it is illegal. When we look at laws of that time it is clear murder is not allowed in any religion. SO even if today we could theorise all the possible edge cases, if we take a Scalia originalist approach we can look at what they said in debate and what they said in written discussion.
In regards to the 2A, people had cannon at their house up to WWI. Cannon. Ginsberg actually supported Heller but she had a dissent based on where does the right stop.
Good sign
Here is the link to the ruling. A good read.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf
Now that there are 5 other conservatives he can stop pretending and will be a hard core activist judge going forward
Still too close for me. Gorsuch better not cuck out on us.
John Roberts Has Lost It He Is Trash .
They Don't Want Christans Talkn To Each Other Untill After the Coup.
P a y w a l l
*destroys ftfy
I'm seeing some obedient sheeps cry about how "This is irresponsible, nobody takes the coronavirus seriously, This is all going to lead to disaster!!!1111"
Their responses to stimuli are so predictable you can set your clocks to them.
Holy fuck.. the liberal justices are fucking disgusting. How do we live in a country with these retards..
Four more years to wait for one of em to croak... that's one of many endgames.
The dissents seem to all argue that since the State is currently not doing what it is charged with that the court cant act until then. Terrible behavior.
Sotomayor believes that the 1st Amendment says –“States may not discriminate against religious institutions” but its ok to limit church attendance? “Right of the people peaceable to assemble”? “prohibiting the free exercise”?
Roberts now believes that “officials” that “Guard and Protect” are appointed by the Constitution and allowed to violate it?
Of concern to me is Gorsuch and Kavanaugh seem to be open to some type of limit a government can place on religious attendance. They only seem to say the number picked is too much. Also that if you equally discriminate against religion and secular then it is ok.
It’s tricky and a slippery slope.
Hypothetically, if there’s a religion based around child rape, I think we can all recognize that as a criminal group and treat it accordingly. But on the stuff like the virus it’s not easy to classify such things in a manner that won’t be abused to harass an innocent religious group minding its own business.. so I’m with you.
That said, I think there are some limits on rights that make sense (though not the ridiculous limit that Dems are calling for). I think 2A = human rights. However, the state prevents violent felons from registering guns.. and that’s probably on balance good for the institution of gun ownership. If Joe the paroled bank robber gets picked up with a hidden piece, he’s off the street and hopefully not robbing any more. Likewise, I think our understanding of allowable weapons is more or less right (modern, magazine fed firearms capable of matching what the government might bring to our door to confiscate our stuff). I wouldn’t want my neighbor playing around with stinger missiles if I could help it... he might obliterate my house with one trigger pull.
That’s not a perfect example and it gets muddy, I know.
If people wish to live in risk that is up to them. Risk of infection or having neighbours with Cannon. If you dont like neighbours with cannon,, we can move. We can also not go to Church. But it is not the place of government to tell us when we can peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. No exception or slippery slope. Dont want Covid, dont go to church and let the rest of us participate in the great Chicken Pox Party so we can get immunity.
Murder is against the law. If your religion has murder as part of its process, it is illegal. When we look at laws of that time it is clear murder is not allowed in any religion. SO even if today we could theorise all the possible edge cases, if we take a Scalia originalist approach we can look at what they said in debate and what they said in written discussion.
In regards to the 2A, people had cannon at their house up to WWI. Cannon. Ginsberg actually supported Heller but she had a dissent based on where does the right stop.
Anything we know about the other judge and how he is looking for our future case for the election? ACB, Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh I know