General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRoberts Upholds COVID-19 Restrictions on Churches, Scolds Kavanaugh
Roberts Upholds COVID-19 Restrictions on Churches, Scolds Kavanaugh
By MARK JOSEPH STERN at Slate
MAY 30, 20209:45 AM
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/supreme-court-coronavirus-california-churches.html
"SNIP.....
Friday at midnight, the Supreme Court rejected a churchs challenge to Californias COVID-19 restrictions by a 54 vote, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberals. In a pointed opinion, Roberts indicated that he will not join conservative judges escalating efforts to override public health measures in the name of religious freedom. Justice Brett Kavanaughs dissent, by contrast, falsely accused the state of religious discrimination in an extremely misleading opinion that omits the most important facts of the case. Roberts went out of his way to scold Kavanaughs dishonest vilification of the state.
SCOTUS late-night order in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom divided the justices into two camps: those who acknowledge reality, and those who ignore it to score ideological points. The case began when a California church accused Gov. Gavin Newsom of violating its religious freedom. Newsoms current COVID-19 policy limits attendance at houses of worship to 25 percent of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees, whichever is lower. At the same time, it allows certain secular businesses, like grocery stores, to operate under looser guidelines, allowing more people to enter. The church claimed this disparate treatment between churches and commercial establishments runs afoul of the First Amendment.
As Roberts noted, however, California does not impose uniform rules on all places where people assemble. The state does strictly limit church attendance. But it applies similar or more severe restrictions to lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances. So the question for the court is less constitutional than scientific: From an epidemiological perspective, are churches more like grocery stores or concerts? And that, the chief justice concluded, is a question for lawmakers, not federal judges.
The precise question of when restrictions on particular social activities should be lifted during the pandemic, Roberts declared, is a dynamic and fact-intensive matter subject to reasonable disagreement. The Constitution leaves such decisions to the politically accountable officials of the state, whose decisions should not be subject to second-guessing by judges who lack background, competence, and expertise to assess public health. Multiple coronavirus outbreaks in California have been traced back to religious services. California has good reason to treat churches more like concertswhere people congregate in large groups and remain in close proximity for extended periodsthan grocery stores, where they can social distance. For courts, that should be the end of the matter.
......SNIP"
SWBTATTReg
(22,144 posts)The pretend supreme court justice was chewed out basically by Roberts. This had to hurt...as it should since K tried to distort the issue.
Cha
(297,347 posts)the issue to make California look bad.
Grateful for Roberts.. wow!
SWBTATTReg
(22,144 posts)Stuart G
(38,436 posts)Let's see, how can that be?
Some people, a lot smarter than Trump,
Had an idea that all can see.
Called the Constitution of the U.S.A.
Written in those days.
By brilliant men.
Who cared about the U.S.A.
And they had their say..
And that say, is still important today.
Thank You...time for a tip of the hat...
Cha
(297,347 posts)that Bloated BLOTUS all he wants.
liberalla
(9,249 posts)I hope he enjoyed that feeling. Hopefully he'll do it some more!
Chemisse
(30,813 posts)If K doesn't take this position willingly, he might be vulnerable to blackmail.
BComplex
(8,054 posts)Roberts is only right once in a blue moon.
Stuart G
(38,436 posts)AlexSFCA
(6,139 posts)realistically, any right-winger can make an easy case here of government overreach but roberts not only rejected it but with force, this very rightwing point of view. Unfortunately, it may mean that he will also side with anti-choice crowd, similarly, by deferring to lawmakers to decide.
dixiechiken1
(2,113 posts)I agree with his decision on this but he still scares the crap outta me. He is a dyed in the wool wingnut with a lot of power. A LOT of power.
not fooled
(5,801 posts)while always marching forward to institute a fascist oligarchy.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)rickyhall
(4,889 posts)MyOwnPeace
(16,928 posts)this is NOT a time to think that he has had his "Come to Jesus" moment regarding IQ45 and Moscow Mitch.
mountain grammy
(26,626 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)He had no constitutional charter to make rulings on anything. Impeachment is considered a political process, Roberts was just there to insure that the rules the Founders set for the process was followed. Like it or not, he did his role as called for.
BComplex
(8,054 posts)He was not neutral by any stretch of the imagination.
bucolic_frolic
(43,205 posts)Yikes. They really do live in the age of the Scopes Monkey Trial
royable
(1,264 posts)If California officials were to tell churchgoers that it's fine for them return to conditions of unsafe social contact, they are being treated differently than sports fans and concert-goers and theatre-goers who can't return to sporting events, concerts, or theater. If the church-goers are told they can return to church, they are being targeted for COVID-19 illness and death. How is that not discrimination against church-goers?
applegrove
(118,711 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,966 posts)Pepsidog
(6,254 posts)quakerboy
(13,920 posts)If Christians have legal protections to gather in conspiracy's to murder.. Why cant other religions do the same with government guaranteed freedom from interference.
LiberalFighter
(50,966 posts)Expose his incompetence.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)KentuckyWoman
(6,688 posts)I could be wrong, but seems to me He tends to err on the side of less intrusion into local matters.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Kavanaugh, in other words, wouldnt allow states to make reasonable distinctions between churches and other places of business based on the kind of activity that goes on in that business and whether that activity is likely to spread the coronavirus.
Had Kavanaughs views prevailed, they would have imposed severe limits on the states ability to prevent coronavirus from spreading in places of worship. If there is a sudden outbreak of the virus in California, and the state decides to close all businesses except for grocery stores, Kavanaughs opinion suggests that the state may not impose any restrictions on churches that it doesnt also impose on grocers even though people will starve if they cant buy food.
Nevertheless, the fact that Kavanaugh wound up in dissent is significant, not just because of the public health implications, but because it suggests that Roberts might break with his fellow Republicans in future religious liberty cases. The Court, for example, plans to hear Fulton v. City of Philadelphia in the fall a case asking whether religious organizations have a constitutional right to defy Philadelphias ban on anti-LGBTQ discrimination by government contractors.
Among other things, the plaintiffs in Fulton ask the Supreme Court to overrule Smith and give religious objectors an exceedingly broad power to defy laws that they disagree with on religious grounds. But Robertss vote in South Bay United suggests, at the very least, he recognizes that the Court must not afford so much special solicitude to religious conservatives that it endangers public health.
https://www.vox.com/2020/5/30/21275379/supreme-court-churches-roberts-kavanaugh-south-bay-united-pentecostal-newsom
Fiendish Thingy
(15,631 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)RainCaster
(10,892 posts)DFT's buddy did not prevail. How sad.
47of74
(18,470 posts)yonder
(9,668 posts)I suppose Roberts was referencing judges in general but would like to think he was giving Kavanaugh a good poke in the ribs too.
jaxexpat
(6,837 posts)He's preoccupied by the worms in his head.
dlk
(11,572 posts)In matters of public health he often rules with the liberals. His smackdown of Kavanaugh is priceless!
snort
(2,334 posts)Blue Owl
(50,445 posts)n/t
Historic NY
(37,451 posts)in an extremely misleading opinion that omits the most important facts of the case. Roberts went out of his way to scold Kavanaughs dishonest vilification of the state.
I suggest that he be required to recuse himself from any proceeding dealing with the state of California.....we now know he is biased .
applegrove
(118,711 posts)and laugh about it. The cult must be nurtured.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,356 posts)He and his little dog Lindsey vowed revenge.
Miigwech
(3,741 posts)As soon as we take over in Nov., the Senate, House and the Presidency ... kick the plans into action so we can rid the Supreme Court from this supremely unqualified excuse for a man.
turbinetree
(24,703 posts)State of New York criminal proceedings on those tax returns about the sociopaths megalomaniac................I still do not trust him, he voted to tell voters that they had to stand in line to vote in Wisconsin, and he also has eviscerated the voting rights act.............
manhattan123
(302 posts)No question he's a right-winger, and likely rules opposite the way I would like 99 percent of the time, but it seems he will do the right thing once in a while in important cases. Certainly more than Alito, Thomas, Kavanugh and those other creeps.