At the same time, the Governor has chosen to impose no capacity restrictions on certain businesses he considers “es-sential.” And it turns out the businesses the Governor con-siders essential include hardware stores, acupuncturists, and liquor stores. Bicycle repair shops, certain signage companies, accountants, lawyers, and insurance agents are all essential too. So, at least according to the Governor, itmay be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pickup another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians. Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience?
Kind of like looting and rioting is okay and does not spread the covid but having a Trump rally will trigger doomsday. /s
Thanks for posting .
Reading the dissents is informative.
Roberts and the other communist rat bastards all maintained that because Cuomo, AFTER the complaint was filed, changed the classification from orange to yellow, the situation changed and it was therefore moot. This sophistry would allow the governor to perpetually impose restrictions, force the churches to expend time and money to file for injunctive relief, then pull the restrictions right before the court hears the case, and have the court engage in a continual round robin of declaring the issue moot, while allowing the governor the ability to continue the unconstitutional practice at any time he chooses.
This has become their MO, time after time. Continually implement unconstitutional laws and change them when a challenge moves forward. Repeat ad nauseum. Fuck Commie lawfare.
The SCOTUS has done this with gun restrictions as well. Government lets the unconstitutional law ride until it gets to the SCOTUS and then changes it and declares the case moot. However SCOTUS can hear those cases if it wanted to because a controversy remains intact if the government is likely to do the same thing again and we all know they will
Well, I do like the principle, in principle, of the SC ruling on as little as possible, only what's absolutely necessarily before them, so as to not set national precedent unnecessarily.
I wish all judges could just read what is there in the law and not insert extra ideas. Some laws make sense and some laws are outdated or nonsense, but it’s not a judge’s role to fix those laws based on how the wind is blowing today.
I don't know how anyone who studied law can find ambiguity in Freedom of Religion. If you can't apply the very first amendment of the Constitution to a decision you should be impeached, disbarred and jailed
A beautifully sarcastic quote from the decision:
Kind of like looting and rioting is okay and does not spread the covid but having a Trump rally will trigger doomsday. /s
Thanks for posting .
Reading the dissents is informative.
Roberts and the other communist rat bastards all maintained that because Cuomo, AFTER the complaint was filed, changed the classification from orange to yellow, the situation changed and it was therefore moot. This sophistry would allow the governor to perpetually impose restrictions, force the churches to expend time and money to file for injunctive relief, then pull the restrictions right before the court hears the case, and have the court engage in a continual round robin of declaring the issue moot, while allowing the governor the ability to continue the unconstitutional practice at any time he chooses.
very sneaky. but that's how they do, right?
we all know those little shits that get away with stuff on technicalities? they're attempting to take over the country.
This has become their MO, time after time. Continually implement unconstitutional laws and change them when a challenge moves forward. Repeat ad nauseum. Fuck Commie lawfare.
The SCOTUS has done this with gun restrictions as well. Government lets the unconstitutional law ride until it gets to the SCOTUS and then changes it and declares the case moot. However SCOTUS can hear those cases if it wanted to because a controversy remains intact if the government is likely to do the same thing again and we all know they will
Hopefully now that we have a real 5-4 majority they will hear some of those cases and right the wrongs!
Well, I do like the principle, in principle, of the SC ruling on as little as possible, only what's absolutely necessarily before them, so as to not set national precedent unnecessarily.
Stop calling Roberts a Conservative. He is a lib salt pillar. I can't wait for find out what they have on him.
I'm not religious but this is the time when people need God the most.
It isn't for me or anyone else to decide which religious services are essential and to whom.
Roberts is a disgrace....
Clearly has no moral fortitude or values, and should be removed ASAP
I wish all judges could just read what is there in the law and not insert extra ideas. Some laws make sense and some laws are outdated or nonsense, but it’s not a judge’s role to fix those laws based on how the wind is blowing today.
I don't know how anyone who studied law can find ambiguity in Freedom of Religion. If you can't apply the very first amendment of the Constitution to a decision you should be impeached, disbarred and jailed
lol... he just called the order sexist. FUCKING HIKARIOUS.