Supreme Court relieves religious organizations from some covid-related restrictions... https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-relieves-rel...

You guys can not be serious. Amy Coney Barrett is the deciding 4-5 vote to remove Covid restrictions just when the US, daily deaths has reached the levels way back in May of way over 2000 per day, with the difference being that infections are tripled.

But the Supreme Court decides to overrule the local health experts due to a single vote, in the name of Constitutional religious freedom. I guess the evangelicals on the Supreme Ct need to make a batshit cray cray ruling to establish their credentials. Even though kirks are notorious for super spreader events due to the close proximity and lots of breathing while singing. It sounds like an SNL sketch.

Good luck with this one. Seriously you guys, restrictions and lockdowns actually do work. What is wrong with you people.

“From Australia, this looks like a mindbogglingly dangerous chapter in the out-of-control American COVID-19 story,” Ian Mackay, an associate professor of virology at the University of Queensland, wrote in an email. “Sadly, for some, this will be a Thanksgiving that is remembered for all the wrong reasons.”

Australia has returned to a large degree of normality in recent weeks, with mass sporting events and even the iconic Sydney Opera House reopening.

There’s a few reasons why Trump ought to get at least a small rock carving at Mt Rushmore but his court picks, especially replacing the last one.
ACB sounds much better than RBG.

When Trump got Covid and he refused medical treatment, instead putting his faith in Jesus, he was miraculously saved.
I'm sure Jesus will protect his flock the same way.

Does anyone else see the irony in the term "flock"?...

First to answer the point if I have read all the opinions. Ha, as if anyone thinks that the Justices do not twist the Constitution to conform to their religious doctrines. These are suppose to be the top legal brains, and if it's a 5-4 split then you've got four plausibly arguing the opposite of the other four, with one making the difference. They can't all be right. So you pick and choose whatever supports your opinion. That is known as confirmation bias.

Would the court agree that some African muslims have the religious freedom to practice female genital mutilation? I don't think so. In this case there is no religious freedom to infect other people. And further the State has a duty of care.

They often argue about originalism or textualism to support their religious doctrine, yet they will use interpretation when it suits. To use originalism for a Constitution written hundreds of years ago is absurd, that would make the Air Force unconstitutional, as the Federalist Judge have argued in the past that if something is not stated explicitly then it cannot be implied. So only the Army and Navy were mentioned. This shows why textualism is phoney.

Sotomayer, stated it best by saying that this is just not an area that the SCOTUS should be second guessing health experts. Not only that but as I understand it, it's just a stay while an appeal is still going on. Plus the actual Church mentioned already had it's restrictions loosened.

This is just the new Republican majority making a point, I believe to soften up minority who want their religious doctrine forced upon the majority.

The bottom line is that it's health experts who should be making decision on health and these are fluid and can and indeed have changed, by turning it into a blanket 'religious freedom' case, is utter bs, and everyone knows it, but they are getting warmed up for Roe v Wade.

SCOTUS, claim at times to be able to overrule the States even when it says in the Constitution that they States get to say how their election is run, at other time SCOTUS claims the opposite.

But as I said in a different post good luck to you all because as long as Trump is turfed, then all is good with the world again.

To use originalism for a Constitution written hundreds of years ago is absurd, that would make the Air Force unconstitutional, as the Federalist Judge have argued in the past that if something is not stated explicitly then it cannot be implied. So only the Army and Navy were mentioned. This shows why textualism is phoney.

Using your logic, an entire institution would need to developed to update laws on a nearly daily basis as technology changes. This is CNN level idiocy. No one thinks the Air Force is unconstitutional. That’s not what originalism or textualism is.

In reality, all of us believe, and our actions demonstrate, our adherence to the concepts of originalism perhaps on a daily basis.

"Churches have congregations.  Liquor stores and bicycle shops don't.
The express purpose of a church is to congregate.
In a pandemic, doesn't it seem important?
We're not allowing arenas to be used for the same reason.
The restrictions are nothing to do with religious persecution."

 I agree here.  While I do question why any of these churches with high-capacity seating can't utilize more of the space, we can't ignore that the purpose is to all get together at once.

 I've found pretty much any law, ordinance etc. that a church has to follow will be called "religious persecution".  A local diocese tried that when they had to add handicapped spots to their parking lot.

 Personally I'd be taking advantage of the opportunity to modernize the church while you can get more acceptance from the parishioners.  Digital sermons are a great way to resolve this steady decline in attendance.

And it’s certainly amusing that someone who cried “Muslim ban and religious persecution” when Trump initiated safeguards on countries with lax passport  controls can change direction so quickly.  Again, it’s all partisan.

Your thought process is completely corrupted by TDS.