• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court, in 5-4 Decision, Rejects Church's Challenge to Shutdown Order

OscarLevant

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
16,876
Reaction score
7,397
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I think the court made the right decision.

The rebuttal to any counter argument is....

In the words of Justice Robert Jackson, if a "court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

Supreme Court, in 5-4 Decision, Rejects Church’s Challenge to Shutdown Order - The New York Times

“Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the free exercise clause of the First Amendment,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in an opinion concurring in the unsigned ruling.

“Similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time,” the chief justice wrote. “And the order exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods.”
Click to expand...

And to the fake "religious freedom is being abridged" BSers out there:

Y'all need to climb down from your silly pseudo self-righteous indignation perches, no one is 'abridging your religion', it's a virus, it can kill you, and it's high time you slap your self out of that idiotic fake high minded bull**** and understand that when enemy jets are shooting bullets, you don't argue 'freedom' when the word from above says 'take cover', you shut the **** up and take cover.

I think the Lord, if there is such a thing, would agree.
 
Religious nutbags are trying to get people killed through race wars or coronavirus. Don't matter which is first.

Ja sam Baba Yaga [emoji328]
 
Health and sanitation laws have always been strong.

It's for the good of the majority of people.

And every nation in the world has health and sanitation laws, America isn't an exception.
 
OscarLevant said:
I think the court made the right decision.

The rebuttal to any counter argument is....

In the words of Justice Robert Jackson, if a "court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."



And to the fake "religious freedom is being abridged" BSers out there:

Y'all need to climb down from your silly pseudo self-righteous indignation perches, no one is 'abridging your religion', it's a virus, it can kill you, and it's high time you slap your self out of that idiotic fake high minded bull**** and understand that when enemy jets are shooting bullets, you don't argue 'freedom' when the word from above says 'take cover', you shut the **** up and take cover.

I think the Lord, if there is such a thing, would agree.
Click to expand...

More proof that we do NOT have a conservative court.
 
Christians should be leading thre charge ro protect the lives of God's older children.

Instead many do the opposite.

I must be unique. I could withstand 50 years of not going to church. My faith doesn't expire.
 
washunut said:
More proof that we do NOT have a conservative court.
Click to expand...


Roberts is a moderate, siding with conservatives sometimes, siding with liberals sometimes.
 
CaughtInThe said:
Christians should be leading thre charge ro protect the lives of God's older children.

Instead many do the opposite.

I must be unique. I could withstand 50 years of not going to church. My faith doesn't expire.
Click to expand...

Good for you, and the 5/4 decision won't affect 'your religion' in any way.
 
Kavanaugh's minority opinion is brain cracked.

The hearing has embittered him against a better America.
 
OscarLevant said:
Roberts is a moderate, siding with conservatives sometimes, siding with liberals sometimes.
Click to expand...

Not really. He just a conservative that is scared that his court will vote down party lines so sometimes he comes in the middle. Don't crown roberts yet. He has a long way to go before he proves he can be Anthony Kennedy.
 
And state and local government sit back and do nothing while thousands of people riot and violate the coody codes. The lockdown orders don't mean ****, anymore.
 
OscarLevant said:
Roberts is a moderate, siding with conservatives sometimes, siding with liberals sometimes.
Click to expand...

Thus what I said is accurate. The B.S. about a conservative court is just that.
 
99percenter said:
Not really. He just a conservative that is scared that his court will vote down party lines so sometimes he comes in the middle. Don't crown roberts yet. He has a long way to go before he proves he can be Anthony Kennedy.
Click to expand...

Yes, he's definitely pissed me off more than once.
 
washunut said:
Thus what I said is accurate. The B.S. about a conservative court is just that.
Click to expand...

Well, as long as Roberts is there, it's not a liberal court, either.
 
apdst said:
And state and local government sit back and do nothing while thousands of people riot and violate the coody codes. The lockdown orders don't mean ****, anymore.
Click to expand...

The Country's Top Doc could spray them down with disinfectant- there we go- no cooties.

cooties - Google Search
 
OscarLevant said:
I think the court made the right decision.

The rebuttal to any counter argument is....

In the words of Justice Robert Jackson, if a "court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."



And to the fake "religious freedom is being abridged" BSers out there:

Y'all need to climb down from your silly pseudo self-righteous indignation perches, no one is 'abridging your religion', it's a virus, it can kill you, and it's high time you slap your self out of that idiotic fake high minded bull**** and understand that when enemy jets are shooting bullets, you don't argue 'freedom' when the word from above says 'take cover', you shut the **** up and take cover.

I think the Lord, if there is such a thing, would agree.
Click to expand...
Do you support criminalizing all the current protests, based on the same logic used to close churches?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
OscarLevant said:
I think the court made the right decision.

The rebuttal to any counter argument is....

In the words of Justice Robert Jackson, if a "court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

And to the fake "religious freedom is being abridged" BSers out there:

Y'all need to climb down from your silly pseudo self-righteous indignation perches, no one is 'abridging your religion', it's a virus, it can kill you, and it's high time you slap your self out of that idiotic fake high minded bull**** and understand that when enemy jets are shooting bullets, you don't argue 'freedom' when the word from above says 'take cover', you shut the **** up and take cover.

I think the Lord, if there is such a thing, would agree.
Click to expand...

Jackson's warning is not the first time it has been used. Lincoln had used a similar argument in his suspension of habeas corpus in the midst of the civil war, the most bloody war in US history. While the Supreme Court was never convinced of it, few doubt that for a war of insurrection tearing apart the country Lincoln had a strong argument. Yes, the constitutional boundaries of a free civil society were threatened with destruction (if the South had won outright) and that's about as close to suicide as the American republic had (or would) come.

Now, the Republic wasn't threatened with suicide in the 1918 pandemic (15x greater adjusted deaths compared to today in nine months) and certainly less so now. And as a "suicide threat" it is a nothing burger compared to the the civil war - whose death, when adjusted for population, would be the equivalent of 7,000,000 dead today (to say nothing of its huge economic destruction).

Therefore, the rationalization that if the extreme church attendance limits were lifted, or at least no worse that all other business institutions, the CONSTIUTION would become a SUICIDE pact for the Republic is...well...too stupid to be entertained by anyone with an IQ larger than their belt size.

Finally thanks to Justice Roberts, his dissent in Koramatsu on the Japanese "lockdown" can almost be used, word for word today. Substitute the plaintiffs and the actors (as I did below) and his reasoning reads true:

"The Church and its parishioners are citizens of the United States by nativity and naturalization, and citizens of California by residence. There is no suggestion that apart from the matter involved here, they are not law-abiding and well- disposed. These citizens are, however, threatened with prosecution for an act not commonly a crime. It consists merely of being present in a building of worship, practicing their faith, using their right to exercise their faith under the Bill of Rights.

...I (would not) distort the Constitution to approve all that the government or a governor may deem (as) expedient.... I cannot say, from any evidence before me, that the orders of the authorities were not reasonably expedient safety precautions, nor could I say that they were. But even if they were permissible procedures, I deny that it follows that they are constitutional. If, as the Court holds, it does follow, then we may as well say that any government order will be constitutional, and have done with it.".

Perhaps you should read a bit more about Jackson, methinks.
 
apdst said:
And state and local government sit back and do nothing while thousands of people riot and violate the coody codes. The lockdown orders don't mean ****, anymore.
Click to expand...
When you are more concerned with the protests about police murdering an unarmed man, than you are that police murdered an unarmed man, you are part of the problem.
 
99percenter said:
As a liberal, shouldn't you be pleased?
Click to expand...

Yes I am fine with Roberts. Doesn't mean I should not point out facts to people who do not know what they are talking about.
 
maxparrish said:
Jackson's warning is not the first time it has been used. Lincoln had used a similar argument in his suspension of habeas corpus in the midst of the civil war, the most bloody war in US history. While the Supreme Court was never convinced of it, few doubt that for a war of insurrection tearing apart the country Lincoln had a strong argument. Yes, the constitutional boundaries of a free civil society were threatened with destruction (if the South had won outright) and that's about as close to suicide as the American republic had (or would) come.
Click to expand...
False comparison, and you didn't state the 'similar argument'. Habeus Corpus cannot be used on foreign battlefield, for pragmatic reasons.
Now, the Republic wasn't threatened with suicide in the 1918 pandemic (15x greater adjusted deaths compared to today in nine months) and certainly less so now. And as a "suicide threat" it is a nothing burger compared to the the civil war - whose death, when adjusted for population, would be the equivalent of 7,000,000 dead today (to say nothing of its huge economic destruction).
Click to expand...
Pandemics and wars kill as much as it will kill, and population size does not limit it. Therefore, you can't extrapolate it to 'today's population.'
Therefore, the rationalization that if the extreme church attendance limits were lifted, or at least no worse that all other business institutions, the CONSTIUTION would become a SUICIDE pact for the Republic is...well...too stupid to be entertained by anyone with an IQ larger than their belt size.
Click to expand...
Theatres, concerts, are regulated by pandemic considerations, so it was decided Churches would get no special treatment. They made a distinction between one group, concerts, theatres, and churches, were people are held close together in seatings, and stores and and places where people are wandering around and social distancing can be easily maintained.

Religion had nothing to do with it, so the religious argument wasn't applicable.

The Robert's reference fits perfectly.

Finally thanks to Justice Roberts, his dissent in Koramatsu on the Japanese "lockdown" can almost be used, word for word today. Substitute the plaintiffs and the actors (as I did below) and his reasoning reads true:

"The Church and its parishioners are citizens of the United States by nativity and naturalization, and citizens of California by residence. There is no suggestion that apart from the matter involved here, they are not law-abiding and well- disposed. These citizens are, however, threatened with prosecution for an act not commonly a crime. It consists merely of being present in a building of worship, practicing their faith, using their right to exercise their faith under the Bill of Rights.

...I (would not) distort the Constitution to approve all that the government or a governor may deem (as) expedient.... I cannot say, from any evidence before me, that the orders of the authorities were not reasonably expedient safety precautions, nor could I say that they were. But even if they were permissible procedures, I deny that it follows that they are constitutional. If, as the Court holds, it does follow, then we may as well say that any government order will be constitutional, and have done with it.".

Perhaps you should read a bit more about Jackson, methinks.
Click to expand...


The fact that the internment camps were wrong wasn't virus related, specious argument.
 
trouble13 said:
Do you support criminalizing all the current protests, based on the same logic used to close churches?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I think they should at least try to enforce social distancing


The court ruling made exceptions to 'stores' and places where people are wandering around loosely where social distancing is more easily maintained, over 'concerts, theatres, where people are congregated close to each other, and churches fit into that group (which, coincidentally, are called 'congregations').

The protest was reactionary, and hardly preventable, so dealing with it is on a 'cope' basis, but I think police could have done a better job of maintaining social distancing, but, in such a situation, easier said that done, hence the word 'cope'.
 
OscarLevant said:
I think they should at least try to enforce social distancing


The court ruling made exceptions to 'stores' and places where people are wandering around loosely where social distancing is more easily maintained, over 'concerts, theatres, where people are congregated close to each other, and churches fit into that group (which, coincidentally, are called 'congregations').

The protest was reactionary, and hardly preventable, so dealing with it is on a 'cope' basis, but I think police could have done a better job of maintaining social distancing, but, in such a situation, easier said that done, hence the word 'cope'.
Click to expand...
Its easiy dealt with. Its a crime to not maintain social distancing and you enforce it. Protesting is no more essential than praying.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom