# Supreme Court Says Church Bans UNCONSTITUTIONAL!



## ChemEngineer (Dec 3, 2020)

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans


The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) restrictions on indoor worship services, agreeing with religious groups they are unconstitutional.

The High Court granted a petition from Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena that sought to overturn a lower court’s ruling in favor of Newsom’s restrictions.

The ruling cited the Supreme Court’s decision last week in a similar case in which it ruled in favor of faith groups that challenged New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s (D) worship restrictions.

-------------------------------------

Gruesome Newsom is a Leftist idiot.  Even wacky Californians are circulating a petition to recall him.


----------



## jillian (Dec 3, 2020)

ChemEngineer said:


> U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> 
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) restrictions on indoor worship services, agreeing with religious groups they are unconstitutional.
> ...


That isn’t really what it said. And the court doesn’t generally rule on moot matters. But that’s what happens when you stack the court with christifacists


----------



## JackOfNoTrades (Dec 3, 2020)

Unfortunate result when rule by the court is done from a religious and political perspective instead of ceding to the science and public health.
Common sense...out the window we go!


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 3, 2020)

jillian said:


> That isn’t really what it said. And the court doesn’t generally rule on moot matters. But that’s what happens when you stack the court with christifacists



I think it was the New York case where the judges ruled that the government can't specifically single out churches for these meeting limits ... when weighed against the types of assembly that was listed as essential ... acupuncture clinics and beauty salons ... if you want to limit people gathering, you have to limit ALL gatherings ... strictly illegal to target religion for this prohibition ...

If California and New York are serious ... they'll shut down places equally, without regard to race, ethnicity, religion, sex, or the rest of the protected classes ...


----------



## pknopp (Dec 3, 2020)

Seems a ruling based upon many aspects of the Constitution. Religious freedom and equal protection being the two biggest ones.

 But again I will note. That just because you can do something doesn't mean you should but these kinds of questions do not answered and addressed.


----------



## pknopp (Dec 3, 2020)

JackOfNoTrades said:


> Unfortunate result when rule by the court is done from a religious and political perspective instead of ceding to the science and public health.
> Common sense...out the window we go!


 
 It was ruled on as it pertains to the Constitution.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Dec 3, 2020)

That something like that even had to go to the Supreme Court is high indication of how far this nation has fallen from grace.

Living with the Godless Left is hell on Earth.


----------



## theHawk (Dec 3, 2020)

jillian said:


> the court doesn’t generally rule on moot matters.


LOL, First Amendment rights....are now a “moot matter”?

Pull your head out of Newsom’s ass.


----------



## JackOfNoTrades (Dec 3, 2020)

pknopp said:


> JackOfNoTrades said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunate result when rule by the court is done from a religious and political perspective instead of ceding to the science and public health.
> ...



Again. Out with common sense. Viewed as a static document and not the living, breathing doc a lot of people think it was meant to be.
I'm not arguing the strict legal interpretation. As long as we agree that all the sick and dead resulting were sacrificed in the name of said document.
I'm sure it will be a great comfort to the families of those lost.


----------



## pknopp (Dec 3, 2020)

JackOfNoTrades said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > JackOfNoTrades said:
> ...



 If you are going to simply dismiss things you don't like that can be done to any of it. 

 As I noted, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should but no one should be able to ignore our Constitutional protections.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 3, 2020)

ChemEngineer said:


> U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> 
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) restrictions on indoor worship services, agreeing with religious groups they are unconstitutional.
> ...


the only thing is these courts make these rulings but there is never any action taken against these criminal governors. a judge did the same thing with facist whitmere and correct me if I am wrong,but isnt she still the governor there?


----------



## pknopp (Dec 3, 2020)

LA RAM FAN said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> ...



 The courts smacked down Trump more than once. It happens. It's why we have the system we do. 

 Are you arguing that when a politician gets ruled against by the courts they should be removed? OK if so. It would have saved us a lot of headaches with this last election.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (Dec 3, 2020)

jillian said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> ...


WTF is a christifacist?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 3, 2020)

pknopp said:


> LA RAM FAN said:
> 
> 
> > ChemEngineer said:
> ...


uh you are evading the post charlie. apples and oranges,we have the most corrupt court system in the world. again WHY make these rulings if nothing ever is done about them? 

Reminds me of the double stanard the NFL has in theory hypocrisy.they made these rules that nfl teams have to follow if they want to leave their city to move to another city.well the raiders and chargers violated those rules yet they were aloowed to leave. whhy makes those rules if they are not followed? same here,WHY have judges make these rulings if no action  is ever taken.

anybody with a pea brain can see the so fucking obvious that gruesome newsome is the next hitler,the most evil fucking man on the planet same with whitmere. only an idiot would not be aware of their corruption how they keep shitting on the constititution.


----------



## pknopp (Dec 3, 2020)

LA RAM FAN said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > LA RAM FAN said:
> ...



 Something was done. The restrictions have been overturned.

 P.S. you avoided my question.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Dec 3, 2020)

jillian said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> ...



Jillian, there is a Pew Survey that shows Leftists admit having more mental problems than conservatives/Christians.  You exhibit that very symptom of mental illness by spewing your venom and hatred.
Women have more mental problems than men.  The younger they are, the more mental problems.  If you search, you can find the graph. I won't bother to repost it here but get help before you go transsexual.  They have a very high suicide rate and high clinical depression.
You don't even know how to spell "fascists," poor thing.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Dec 3, 2020)

jillian said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> ...




What is a facist? If you meant FASCIST, that would be Newsome. 

THat is why the court struck down his attack against freedom of religion and freedom of assembly.


----------



## hadit (Dec 3, 2020)

jillian said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> ...


Thank goodness that didn't happen. That might scare some already paranoid people.


----------



## justinacolmena (Dec 3, 2020)

JackOfNoTrades said:


> Unfortunate result when rule by the court is done from a religious and political perspective instead of ceding to the science and public health.
> Common sense...out the window we go!


That's quite the circumcision district. I'm not sure it's a church at all.


Yousaidwhat said:


> WTF is a christifacist?


The religion of Cæsar Augustus, King Herod, and Pontius Pilate ...








						Bible Gateway passage: Luke 2:1-7 - King James Version
					

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the...




					www.biblegateway.com
				







__





						MATTHEW 2:16 KJV Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and...
					

Matthew 2:16 KJV: Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the




					www.kingjamesbibleonline.org
				











						Bible Gateway passage: John 19 - King James Version
					

Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe, And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands. Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I...




					www.biblegateway.com


----------



## WEATHER53 (Dec 3, 2020)

Health issues don’t wipe out the constitution or freedom although Great effort is being exerted to  do so


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 3, 2020)

pknopp said:


> LA RAM FAN said:
> 
> 
> > pknopp said:
> ...


But they have not gone to jail like they should be so that’s not true,nothing has been done,they are criminals,they belong behind bars they are not,end of story,please rephrase the question on what you are talking about.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 3, 2020)

Dogmaphobe said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > ChemEngineer said:
> ...


Yeah but he should be in jail for violating the constitution in the first place,he isnt and never will be,the elite protect these criminal politicians.


----------



## San Souci (Dec 3, 2020)

ChemEngineer said:


> U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> 
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) restrictions on indoor worship services, agreeing with religious groups they are unconstitutional.
> ...


He should be recalled. Like Gray-Out Davis.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Dec 3, 2020)

Yousaidwhat said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > ChemEngineer said:
> ...


It's something from the voices in her head.


----------



## pknopp (Dec 3, 2020)

LA RAM FAN said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > LA RAM FAN said:
> ...



 I phrased it just fine. You are just full of crap.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 4, 2020)

jillian said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> ...


Newsom is a Letfist Loon


----------



## Thoth001 (Dec 4, 2020)

ChemEngineer said:


> U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> 
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) restrictions on indoor worship services, agreeing with religious groups they are unconstitutional.
> ...



I don't subscribe to a religion but I do love researching the different religions and how they were created. And I wouldn't waste my time in a church. 

But I will defend your right to go to a church and enjoy the religion you subscribe to. We must stand together to defeat the tyranny they want to impose on us.


----------



## beautress (Dec 4, 2020)

ChemEngineer said:


> U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> 
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) restrictions on indoor worship services, agreeing with religious groups they are unconstitutional.
> ...


----------



## badger2 (Dec 4, 2020)

The first communism was the Mayflower Charter. The tyranny of note was the Massachusetts Bay colony’s plans to install myth and fairy tales as normalcy.


----------



## Penelope (Dec 4, 2020)

LA RAM FAN said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> ...



Yes she is and I voted for her and will again.


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 4, 2020)

jillian said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> ...


Better than packing it with dimo facist. Fact.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 4, 2020)

Penelope said:


> LA RAM FAN said:
> 
> 
> > ChemEngineer said:
> ...


Yeah we all know how you hate America and love these commiie governors,you have shown the entire board what an asshole you are  and really did just now even more so the facts the courts ruled her dreconian acts just that unconstitutional,you  hate america though as you have proven in spades dnc paid shill so you of course are clueless about the constitution and how that evil women violated it,you are as evil as she is so of course you will vote for her again same as you would  with newsome if you lived in California.your fucked up mindset is the dems can do no wrong even when they obviously violate the constitution.

you have such a biased hate to the gop party that because of your bias you ignore the corruption fraud that went on,you know as well as we do if the shoe was on the other foot and this had happened to biden,you would be screaming at the top of your lungs at the vote fraud that took place,you know it,I know it.especially after you cling to the conspiracy theoryon russia collusion which had ten times far less evidence than this does.

The differerence in me and you biden trolls is you all have no conscience  thst you won’t get past your bias of how evil the dems are to acknowledge the vote fraud that took place.that’s the differerence in us is if this had happened to Biden,I would STILL be saying the most massive vote fraud took place in mankind history and I would want a wrong to be corrected into a right,you though,your so fucking evil like your hero whitmere,you have no conscience in right or wrong and  vote for the party over the person.I never vote for the party, I vote for the person,for example,when carter did not get re-elected and reagan got in,I was pissed.if trump was a democrat,you would be saying massive vote fraud did indeed happened jerk. 

your message in your posts is retarded as hell  because republicans like bush and romney,they hate trump because he is not a globalist as they are and they voted for biden sense he is a globalist same as him,but you miss America hater,are too stupid to understand any of this obviously though.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 4, 2020)

pknopp said:


> LA RAM FAN said:
> 
> 
> > ChemEngineer said:
> ...


The fact you were too much of a chickenshit to repeat the question you are hardly one to say I am full of crap.of course the courts smacked down trump clueless,we got the most corrupt court system in the world duh.obviously you are dense to what stalin said when said it’s not how many people that votes that counts,it’s WHO counts the votes that count.these are corrupt judges obviously Einstein so of course the fucking courts are dismissing the evidence,damn your fucking stupid.you don’t think the elite badly want trump out? Then why have his lawyers and witnesses been getting threats to their family’s? Next thing you’ll say is I’m full of crap on that as well.  
Y


----------



## beautress (Dec 4, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > That isn’t really what it said. And the court doesn’t generally rule on moot matters. But that’s what happens when you stack the court with christifacists
> ...


Make no laws against churches. Accepted by everyone in colonial times that God is the creator of mankind and behaviors dating back to Hammurabi's code and Mosaic laws became universally accepted by believers of God as his requirements of humans to keep and live by. Over time, some minor requirements became more imperative than the entire Mosaic credo, so believers splintered according to what imperative ought to rule in members' hearts. Even so, in America, the snubbery and taxes of an uncaring monarch became less desirable than these lesser precepts, so the Continental Congress wanted to include all good men to unite against their intolerant king thousands of miles away who wanted colonial serfs to avoid countries their king hated, when they liked for example good prices the French traders gave the busy colonial slaves their king looked disparagingly down on.

And that's why the Continental Congress voted to favor equality of people of other faiths, and when Jewish bankers emptied their vaults to furnish coats and socks and shoes to the beloved sons called to serve in the continental army against all the king's men, religious freedom was noted that good sense called them to separate religious faith from the new government that appreciated all that was done to give them freedom from the priviledged Old World"s enforcement agents enforcing the king's desired tax treasures taken back to Britain whose king allowed no representation of their requests, much less their human needs.


----------



## pknopp (Dec 4, 2020)

LA RAM FAN said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > LA RAM FAN said:
> ...


 
The question is still there. There is no reason to repeat it. You didn't answer the first time so you wouldn't answer the second either.

The question is still there. Answer it or not.


----------



## Persistence Of Memory (Dec 4, 2020)

ChemEngineer said:


> U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> 
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) restrictions on indoor worship services, agreeing with religious groups they are unconstitutional.
> ...


Great! Now what about massive election fraud?


----------



## ChemEngineer (Dec 4, 2020)

Persistence Of Memory said:


> Great! Now what about massive election fraud?



Patience grasshopper.  President Trump has some of the brightest minds working on this across the country, from attorneys to statisticians to military software experts.    "Be still and know that I am God." - The Holy Bible


----------



## San Souci (Dec 4, 2020)

pknopp said:


> LA RAM FAN said:
> 
> 
> > pknopp said:
> ...


No.He is right.You are wrong.


----------



## Persistence Of Memory (Dec 4, 2020)

ChemEngineer said:


> Persistence Of Memory said:
> 
> 
> > Great! Now what about massive election fraud?
> ...


Guess we have to wait until the pebble is snatched from the hand....lol


----------



## pknopp (Dec 4, 2020)

San Souci said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > LA RAM FAN said:
> ...



 You don't even know what he said.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 4, 2020)

pknopp said:


> LA RAM FAN said:
> 
> 
> > pknopp said:
> ...


Oh fuck off quit lying,I answered it and countered it,you ignored it like the troll you are,no he knows exactly what I said and knows you keep evading my facts you keep evading them not addressing them so I’m done with  your trolling and your lies thst I did not answer the question,It was late the other night when I said I wasn’t sure of the question so today I went back and looked at it and answered it,you can’t counter it so you pretend I did not answer it.  Unlike you,he knows EXACTLY what I said cause unlike you,he does not have reading comprehension problems.


----------



## San Souci (Dec 4, 2020)

pknopp said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> > pknopp said:
> ...


Does not matter. Libs are always wrong.


----------



## WEATHER53 (Dec 4, 2020)

Fear of potential worst case outcome does not set aside the constitution nor other legally guaranteed freedoms.


----------



## Papageorgio (Dec 5, 2020)

jillian said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> ...



Religious freedom is fascist? The decision says you must treat every organization the same. You can’t allow a non-essential business one set of rules and another, a different set. That is all they are saying. As not in the last decision the church made decisions to make the worship safe and they couldn’t prove attending that church was spiking with Covid.

Not an earth shattering decision and very sound.


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 5, 2020)

WEATHER53 said:


> Fear of potential worst case outcome does not set aside the constitution nor other legally guaranteed freedoms.


Well it did for Lincoln during the time leading up to the civil war. So far the latest war has been on paper so to speak, but it can quickly escalate if honesty doesn't win the day.


----------



## pknopp (Dec 5, 2020)

San Souci said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > San Souci said:
> ...



 So what are you saying? I was wrong for siding with the Supreme Court here?


----------



## Thevolunteerwino (Dec 5, 2020)

I am glad someone in this coumtry has the balls to fight for our right to hather together if we want and not be subject to a marshall.law police state type lifestyle. C'mon people, We are not children.
  Seems the Church because of its power has the govt in a corner on this one.
I am just glad there are so many of religous organizations that the govt cant fight back.
Thank you Christians. You are awesome! 
  I dont have to believe in everything your doctrines possess to appteciate you having the guts to do where others in this country have caved in under pressure and joined the ranks of the corrupt and unethical simply to make money or friends.  Kudos!
  I think I will walk into one of these churches this weekend.  Give a donation.  And thank them personally.  Haven't been in one for years..


----------



## beautress (Dec 5, 2020)

pknopp said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> > pknopp said:
> ...


In one and only one bad decision the Supreme Court sent 70 million unborn Americans to a cruel and unusual punishment just preceding a bloody death with some physical dismemberment before their sweet, trusting little brains experienced unspeakable agony of going through a deadly sucking mechanism far smaller than its confused little frontal lobe.
​


----------



## pknopp (Dec 5, 2020)

beautress said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > San Souci said:
> ...



 No idea how that addresses my question. Nor do you.


----------



## miketx (Dec 5, 2020)

jillian said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> ...


----------



## ChemEngineer (Dec 5, 2020)

God bless you Beautress, and expand your territory.









						Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
					






					AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
				




One of my ninety websites.


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 5, 2020)

The supreme court was spot on...  

I know of churches in my area that have been operating without incident, and most of the flocks are upper 60s, 70s, and upper 80s. Not one of these Churches have had not even one case of this virus since it all started over several months ago. In fact I just left our church for a workday, and we had a great day. No one sick, and no spreader event took place because no one was sick.

Politicizing the virus has caused great harm to this country, and answers need to be given as to why it was politicized.

Yes, people get sick, and some die due to getting sick, but most are surviving this thing just like they do with the flu virus.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2020)

LA RAM FAN said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> ...



What do you expect the court to do beyond what they did?  They don't have the power to remove a governor from office.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2020)

LA RAM FAN said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



As far as I'm aware, Newsom hasn't violated any criminal codes that carry penalties.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2020)

San Souci said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> ...



Well, it is for the people to value their freedoms enough to defend them by recalling him.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2020)

Penelope said:


> LA RAM FAN said:
> 
> 
> > ChemEngineer said:
> ...



Well, at least you're proud of your choice to be a cringing, servile peasant.


----------



## dblack (Dec 5, 2020)

ChemEngineer said:


> U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> 
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) restrictions on indoor worship services, agreeing with religious groups they are unconstitutional.
> ...



Are bans on attending football games also unconstitutional? I haven't read it yet, but it sounds like a ridiculous ruling.


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 5, 2020)

Cecilie1200 said:


> LA RAM FAN said:
> 
> 
> > Dogmaphobe said:
> ...


I'm sure if his name was Trump, the left would invent some crimes he could be found guilty of. Some governor's need removing from office, otherwise there is no balance of power or no separation of powers that can correct a bad situation within our government's.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2020)

beagle9 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > LA RAM FAN said:
> ...



I don't deny for a second that some of these governors should be removed from office.  But that is for their people of their states to do, not for judges.  Passing bad, even Unconsitutional, executive orders is not a criminal offense.  And the fact that Democrats would be sleazy enough to do something is certainly not a directive to us to behave as badly as they do.


----------



## pknopp (Dec 6, 2020)

dblack said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> ...



 It might be but there is one major difference. The right to go to a football game isn't clearly stated in the Constitution like practicing your religion is.

 But as I said, the way it is carried out very well may be. Equal protection is also in the Constitution. One very well may be able to argue that Business A is allowed to carry out their business without restrictions on the number of people so all should be able to. 

 Take it to court.


----------



## dblack (Dec 6, 2020)

pknopp said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > ChemEngineer said:
> ...



Nope. The First Amendment isn't a right to practice your religion. It's a restraint on government from passing laws regarding religion. (Congress shall pass no law ...) 

I realize the Court disagrees with me on this issue, but I think the current interpretation actually gets it wrong. The point of the religion clause of the First Amendment was to prohibit government from dictating our religious practices. Many of America's first European immigrants were fleeing religious persecution at the hands of government and they wanted to ensure the US would have no state religion, and that government wouldn't be able to ban religions it didn't approve of.

The First Amendment is a limitation on federal power. It's not a "special rights for special people" kind of thing. It doesn't give a person the right to do whatever they want in the name of their religion. Murder, for example, is illegal. It doesn't matter whether your religion has a hallowed tradition of human sacrifice. You'll still be prosecuted if you kill someone. In this case, the state has banned gatherings. Whether that should be Constitutional is a valid question. But the laws prohibiting gatherings are not laws "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". They're not targeting religions or religious practice. 

In my view, the ban on gatherings _can_ be seen as a violation of the First, but not because of the religion clause. The portion that _could_ validly apply is the clause protecting "the right of the people peaceably to assemble". But that applies to football games every bit as much as it applies to religious services.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 6, 2020)

JackOfNoTrades said:


> Unfortunate result when rule by the court is done from a religious and political perspective instead of ceding to the science and public health.
> Common sense...out the window we go!



There were plagues and pestilences when the Constitution was written. 

If the Founding Fathers wanted an exception to Freedom of Religion in such an eventuality, they would have written it in.


----------



## pknopp (Dec 6, 2020)

dblack said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



 In my original post on these rulings I noted it also violated the equal protection clause. I have also agreed that much of this could apply to football games. Other businesses are permitted to operate without restrictions so the ones that have been could have a valid argument. 

 I am against an authoritarian government that doesn't act in a fair manner in whatever venue we are discussing. 

 Seems wrong to me that a restaurant would be shut down but a movie set in a restaurant would not.


----------



## Thevolunteerwino (Dec 6, 2020)

pknopp said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > ChemEngineer said:
> ...


Pretty sure the football staduim owners agreed to not having peoole there.  Pretty sure the churcjes respomse was different.  This is about rights and freedom.  You know those things some people think are closely related to govt handouts.


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 6, 2020)

ChemEngineer said:


> The High Court granted a petition from Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena that sought to overturn a lower court’s ruling in favor of Newsom’s restrictions.


The lower court judges should be removed from office for incompetence


----------



## pknopp (Dec 6, 2020)

Thevolunteerwino said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



 No and yes. Most churches shut down on their own. I've noted many times that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.


----------



## dblack (Dec 6, 2020)

Thevolunteerwino said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I agree it's about rights and freedoms. But it's the freedom to peaceably assemble that's in question, not the freedom of religion. They aren't being told they can't practice their religion, they're being told they can't have large gatherings.


----------



## Thevolunteerwino (Dec 6, 2020)

dblack said:


> Thevolunteerwino said:
> 
> 
> > pknopp said:
> ...


But they are practicing their religion.  Their book says to gather together more and more as the day approaches.


----------



## pknopp (Dec 6, 2020)

dblack said:


> Thevolunteerwino said:
> 
> 
> > pknopp said:
> ...



_ And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. _

 Hebrews 10 24-25


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 10, 2020)

Thevolunteerwino said:


> I am glad someone in this coumtry has the balls to fight for our right to hather together if we want and not be subject to a marshall.law police state type lifestyle. C'mon people, We are not children.
> Seems the Church because of its power has the govt in a corner on this one.
> I am just glad there are so many of religous organizations that the govt cant fight back.
> Thank you Christians. You are awesome!
> ...



Who is Marshall Law?


----------



## Blaine Sweeter (Dec 10, 2020)

ChemEngineer said:


> U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> 
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) restrictions on indoor worship services, agreeing with religious groups they are unconstitutional.
> ...



I'm sure the exhausted, overworked, burnt out and depressed doctors and nurses at the local hospitals are just thrilled with this decision.


----------



## dblack (Dec 10, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Thevolunteerwino said:
> 
> 
> > I am glad someone in this coumtry has the balls to fight for our right to hather together if we want and not be subject to a marshall.law police state type lifestyle. C'mon people, We are not children.
> ...


Wasn't he on Duke of Hazzard?


----------



## Blaine Sweeter (Dec 10, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Thevolunteerwino said:
> 
> 
> > I am glad someone in this coumtry has the balls to fight for our right to hather together if we want and not be subject to a marshall.law police state type lifestyle. C'mon people, We are not children.
> ...



It's martial law. Not Marshall Law.
Goddamn, Trumpers are so fucking ignorant.
And that's bullshit., too.
We don't have soldiers in the streets watching us.
"Martial law is the imposition of direct military control of normal civil functions or suspension of civil law by a government, especially in response to a temporary emergency where civil forces are overwhelmed, or in an occupied territory."


----------



## dblack (Dec 10, 2020)

Thevolunteerwino said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Thevolunteerwino said:
> ...


So, answer this then - if my religion dictates human sacrifice, should I be given a pass on laws against murder?


----------



## Blaine Sweeter (Dec 10, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > The High Court granted a petition from Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena that sought to overturn a lower court’s ruling in favor of Newsom’s restrictions.
> ...



LOL
A lot of those judges were appointed by Trump.


*In election cases, Trump-appointed judges rule against Trump ...*
www.abajournal.com › news › article › trump-appointe...
3 days ago — In election cases, Trump-_appointed judges rule against Trump_ and allies, ... and _his_ requests for relief concerning the 2020 election _were_ moot ...

*Trump Is Being Laughed Out of Court by His Own Judicial ...*
www.vanityfair.com › news › 2020/12 › trump-being-l...
5 days ago — Another appeals _court judge appointed_ by _Trump ruled against his_ ... Georgia _was_ one of five battleground states serving up losses to the ...

*U.S. judiciary, shaped by Trump, thwarts his election ... - Reuters*
www.reuters.com › article › us-usa-election-trump-judges
Dec 1, 2020 — An appeals _court judge appointed_ by _Trump_, a Republican, _on_ Friday _ruled against his_ campaign's effort to overturn President-elect Joe Biden's ...


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 10, 2020)

Blaine Sweeter said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > ChemEngineer said:
> ...


It appears that you only found about 5 or 6 trump appointed judges out of 50 cases

and some of those ruling were procedural rather than factual defeats

while in other cases lack of evidence is not the same as saying there was no fraud


----------



## pknopp (Dec 10, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Blaine Sweeter said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


 
 LOL, I suppose that is true. It's also true about anything. Just because there is a lack of evidence doesn't mean Russia didn't cheat for Trump, right?


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 10, 2020)

pknopp said:


> LOL, I suppose that is true. It's also true about anything. Just because there is a lack of evidence doesn't mean Russia didn't cheat for Trump, right?


That was throughly investigated by the mueller lynch mob for 4 years

the democrat election fraud scandal has not been investigated at all yet


----------



## pknopp (Dec 10, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, I suppose that is true. It's also true about anything. Just because there is a lack of evidence doesn't mean Russia didn't cheat for Trump, right?
> ...



 As you said, just because there is no evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen. Don't question me, it's your argument.


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 10, 2020)

pknopp said:


> As you said, just because there is no evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen. Don't question me, it's your argument.


Not quite

Libs had four years to investigate

Trump voters have only days to uncover democrat cheating


----------



## Rye Catcher (Dec 10, 2020)

pknopp said:


> JackOfNoTrades said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunate result when rule by the court is done from a religious and political perspective instead of ceding to the science and public health.
> ...



Where in the Constitution?


----------



## pknopp (Dec 10, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > JackOfNoTrades said:
> ...



 Already been discussed here more than once. Read it.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Dec 10, 2020)

ChemEngineer said:


> U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> 
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) restrictions on indoor worship services, agreeing with religious groups they are unconstitutional.
> ...



Stupid people will go to church, bring their kids and suffer the consequences.  Some will die, some will receive massive bills for staying in an ICU, and others will go out and about an infect other stupid people who roam about in close contact without a mask in the open.

I'm not using "stupid" as a pejorative, I pity biddable fools who won't protect themselves and their communities.


----------



## dblack (Dec 10, 2020)

dblack said:


> Thevolunteerwino said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


*crickets* - always get crickets on that one.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 10, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> ...



Liberals don't attend church!


----------



## airplanemechanic (Dec 10, 2020)

jillian said:


> christifacists



Is that what you call someone who insists on the constitutional right to worship?


----------



## ChemEngineer (Dec 10, 2020)

airplanemechanic said:


> Is that what you (jillian) call someone who insists on the constitutional right to worship?



Leftists such as jillian have learned from their handlers that calling others "Nazis" and "fascists" makes them feel smug and superior and isn't that what really counts?  They will never realize, much less admit, that fascism is Left-wing.  Read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg.  
I have taken copious notes on this great and informative book, should anyone wish to ask for them.  PM me, even you Leftists. I'll oblige in hopes of teaching you.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 11, 2020)

Blaine Sweeter said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> ...



I'm sure my rights aren't dependent on whether or not other people decide it's inconvenient for me to exercise them.  Tell me how concerned you were about "exhausted doctors" when their workload was increased by violent leftist riots.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 11, 2020)

airplanemechanic said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > christifacists
> ...



That's what she calls anyone who dares to believe something she's decided they shouldn't.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 11, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> ...



The stupidest people of all will ASSume that behavior they like is no risk, while behavior they dislike is automatically causing massive breakouts, and never bother to find any stats to support that ASSumption before running around shouting about how it's "fact" and "science".

I pity biddable fools who think reality is formed by them wishing really hard.


----------



## Zorro! (Dec 11, 2020)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > ChemEngineer said:
> ...


Fake News.  Those aren't the critical issues that the Court ruled on.

GAVIN GETS SLAPPED DOWN BY CALIFORNIA JUDGE: The Golden State’s chief executive has issued anti-Covid regulations that are the most blatantly discriminatory against Christians in the nation.

Late Thursday, California Superior Court Judge Gregory Pulskamp waved the red flag, specifically citing the Supreme Court’s recent slapdown of New York Gov. Andrew "Grandma Killer" Cuomo’s similarly bigoted regulations aimed at Jewish and Catholic gatherings in Brooklyn.

It takes time for Supreme Court precedents to be applied as widely as needed, but this decision shows that Justice Alito’s efforts on behalf of the First Amendment and religious freedom are bearing fruit rather quickly.

California Superior Court Judge Gregory Pulskamp delivered a stinging rebuke of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has been caught red-handed violating the rules he has laid down for the State, just as the entire San Francisco City Government has, as well as Nancy Pelosi, late Thursday, ruling against “all Covid-19 restrictions that fail to treat houses of worship equal to the favored class of entities.

The ruling came in the case of _Father Trevor Burfitt v Gavin Newsom_, a suit brought by attorneys for the Thomas More Society on behalf of the priest and multiple Catholic parishes that were barred from holding indoor masses even as big-box stores like Walmart, movie production houses, bus stations and numerous other businesses were exempted.

The judge singled out Newsom’s recently issued “Blueprint for a Safer Economy” and “Regional Stay at Home Order” as failing to satisfy the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom of worship and practice because they aren’t applied equally and in the least restrictive manner necessary to achieve an essential public interest.

“In this case, the restrictions are not ‘neutral’ and of ‘general applicability’ because they assign entities into disparate classifications, which results in religious activities being treated less favorably than comparable secular activities,” Pelskamp wrote.​
“For example, the ‘Purple Tier’ of the ‘Blueprint for a Safer Economy,’ and the most recent ‘Regional Stay at Home Order,’ both impose a total ban on indoor religious services, while simultaneously permitting a wide range of secular indoor activities to varying degrees.​
“Entities permitted to engage in indoor activities – also known as ‘essential businesses’ or ‘critical infrastructure’ – include big-box retail stores, grocery stores, home improvement stores, hotels, airports, train stations, bus stations, movie production houses, warehouses, factories, schools, and a lengthy list of additional businesses.​
“It is important to note that almost all of the entities that are allowed to host indoor operations do not engage in activity that is constitutionally protected, whereas houses of worship do.”​
Thomas More Senior Counsel Chris Ferrara lauded the decision, saying, “after more than nine months of tyranny in the name of ‘containing the spread’ of a virus they have failed to contain, the gubernatorial dictators presiding over draconian lockdowns are running out of runway on their claim that churches are somehow more dangerous viral vectors than any of the litany of ‘essential businesses’ crowded with customers that they allow to operate at 100% capacity.

“The Supreme Court’s decision in _Brooklyn Diocese v. Cuomo_ has opened the way to the liberation of churches from the absurd and bigoted superstition that they are veritable death chambers threatening the entire population.​
“Not even hair salons, which by the services offered necessitate close personal contact, have been subjected to the onerous and barefaced biases heaped upon houses of worship.”​
Amen! Your Honor!


----------



## Rye Catcher (Dec 11, 2020)

Zorro! said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Rye Catcher said:
> ...



Not the final word, I stand by my comments:

_*Stupid people will go to church, bring their kids and suffer the consequences. Some will die, some will receive massive bills for staying in an ICU, and others will go out and about an infect other stupid people who roam about in close contact without a mask in the open.*_

_*I'm not using "stupid" as a pejorative, I pity biddable fools who won't protect themselves and their communities. *_


----------



## Zorro! (Dec 11, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> Zorro! said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You can stand on your head for all I care, SCOTUS is the final word and it's SCOTUS that informs this Judge's action.

We all have Gavin Newsom's number.  He is a hypocrite.  He just had a multiple household, indoor dinner, all seated in close proximity, without masks, because he wanted to celebrate with a bunch of his lobbyists.  

And unlike his right to gather indoors for dinner with a large crowd, the right to gather in worship is specifically outlined in the US Constitution.  

Your hatred, bigotry and view of Christians as second hand citizens, may be your right, but formulating your hateful views into public policy is forbidden in our system.  

Now you see why Republicans insisted that the defeated Democrat States ratify the anti-slavery 13th-14th-15th amendments so that never again could Democrats relegate others to second class status.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 11, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> Zorro! said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



And I stand by my comments:  

*The stupidest people of all will ASSume that behavior they like is no risk, while behavior they dislike is automatically causing massive breakouts, and never bother to find any stats to support that ASSumption before running around shouting about how it's "fact" and "science".*


----------



## Zorro! (Dec 11, 2020)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Zorro! said:
> ...





> And I stand by my comments:


You can stand on you head for all I care.  SCOTUS has the final say, and they communicated it quite clearly, this Judge has applied it flawlessly.


> ... *The stupidest people of all will ASSume that behavior they like is no risk, while behavior they dislike is automatically causing massive breakouts, and never bother to find any stats to support that ASSumption before running around shouting about how it's "fact" and "science".*


Yes, What Gavin Newsom did was not only horrible, it was hypocritical.  No one listens to him, no one defends him.  He has stripped himself of all moral authority.  I wouldn't be surprised if he gets recalled.


----------



## Zorro! (Dec 11, 2020)

JackOfNoTrades said:


> Unfortunate result when rule by the court is done from a religious and political perspective instead of ceding to the science and public health.
> Common sense...out the window we go!


Fake News.  Bigotry disguised as science remains bigotry.

*Tyranny reversed: California judge slaps down Newsom over religious-worship shutdowns *


“Why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but not a pew?”

Just how huge a precedent will the recent Supreme Court decision in _Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn_ turn out to be? We can take one measure from a California court late yesterday in _Father Trevor Burfitt v Gavin Newsom_. In a stinging rebuke to Gov. Adolf Newsom, Judge Gregory Pulskamp imposed an injunction against enforcement of California’s planned COVID-19 restrictions. Using _Brooklyn _as a guide, Pulskamp ripped California’s arbitrary decision to shut down houses of worship while allowing commercial businesses to remain open. 

As we all know, any such limitation on an explicit and textual constitutional right requires a strict scrutiny standard, Pulskamp cited _Brooklyn_ for support. But Pulskamp wonders whether the restrictions even pass a smell test. In fact, Newsom’s order for a blanket ban on worship services was even harsher than Andrew Cuomo’s orders that prompted the _Brooklyn_ decision, Pulskamp notes:


> However, Defendants’ efforts to distinguish the permitted secular activity from the prohibited religious activity are not persuasive. For example, Defendants contend that the congregations of shoppers in big-box stores, grocery stores, etc., are not comparable to religious services in terms of crowd size, proximity, and length of stay. To the contrary, based on the evidence presented (or lack thereof) and common knowledge, it appears that shoppers at a Costco, Walmart, Home Depot, etc. may – and frequently do – congregate in numbers, proximity, and duration that is very comparable to worshippers in houses of worship.


Similar Exposure


> Defendants have not convincingly established that the health risks associated with houses of worship would be any different than “essential businesses” or “critical infrastructure,” assuming the same requirements of social distancing and the wearing of masks were applied across the board. …


False Distinctions


> In addition, the restrictions at issue in this case are not “narrowly tailored” because the occupancy limits imposed on places of worship by the Purple Tier of the Blueprint for a Safer Economy and the Regional Stay at Home Order are zero – a total and complete ban of indoor religious services. These restrictions are arguably harsher than any other set of restrictions considered by the courts in all of the cases cited by the parties in this action.


Newsome Worse Than Cuomo


> In Roman Catholic Diocese, the court considered New York’s religious services occupancy limits of 10 persons in “Red Zones” and 25 persons in “orange zones” to be “very severe restrictions” and “far more restrictive than any Covid-related regulations that have previously come before the Court, much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard-hit by the pandemic, and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus at the applicants’ services.” (Roman Catholic Diocese, supra, at p. 1, 2.)


They view the Religious as Second Class and used COVID to ban religious gatherings.


> What then should the courts think of California’s total ban on indoor services? “Narrowly tailored” regulations mean “the least restrictive means available” and may potentially include a variety of less draconian measures such as “social distancing, wearing masks, leaving doors and windows open, forgoing singing, and disinfecting spaces between services.” (Roman Catholic Diocese, supra, at p. 4 (conc. opn. of Gorsuch, J.).) Therefore, it seems highly probable that Plaintiffs will prevail in this case should the matter proceed to trial.


Pulskamp quotes Good Justice Brett Kavanaugh from a dissent in the earlier _South Bay United_ case, one of the precursors to _Brooklyn_, in pointing out the absurdity of the disparate treatment of religious houses:


> “Assuming all of the same precautions are taken, why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but not a pew? And why can someone safely interact with a brave deliverywoman but not with a stoic minister? … The State cannot ‘assume the worst when people go to worship but assume the best when people go to work or go about the rest of their daily lives in permitted social settings.'”


In other words, this shows a demonstrable hostility to religious expression, which is on its face unconstitutional — and was at the time of _South Bay United_, for that matter. The Supreme Court chose at that time to defer to governors but finally drew a line in the sand with _Brooklyn_. And now that judges have seen the line drawn, they can clearly and justly deal with abusive and arbitrary examples of tyrannical rule-by-whim, such as Adolf Newsom’s order in California.

Mark Tapscott reports on the reaction from Thomas More Society counsel Chris Ferrara, who called this decision a vindication of religious liberty rights:


> Thomas More Senior Counsel Chris Ferrara lauded the decision, saying, “after more than nine months of tyranny in the name of ‘containing the spread’ of a virus they have failed to contain, the gubernatorial dictators presiding over draconian lockdowns are running out of runway on their claim that churches are somehow more dangerous viral vectors than any of the litany of ‘essential businesses’ crowded with customers that they allow to operate at 100% capacity.


And End To "Progressive" Anti-Religious Tyranny under the guise of "Public Health"


> “The Supreme Court’s decision in Brooklyn Diocese v. Cuomo has opened the way to the liberation of churches from the absurd and bigoted superstition that they are veritable death chambers threatening the entire population.


These Totalitarians Are Hateful Scum


> “Not even hair salons, which by the services offered necessitate close personal contact, have been subjected to the onerous and barefaced biases heaped upon houses of worship.”


It’s important to note that this does not spell the end of the case in _Burfitt. _This just enjoins California from enforcing its current restrictions while the case continues. Perhaps Newsom will rethink his approach before this comes back before Pulskamp … but then again, one might have thought Newsom would have done so after _Brooklyn_, too. The tyrannical impulse dies hard.


----------



## jasonnfree (Dec 13, 2020)

Zorro! said:


> JackOfNoTrades said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunate result when rule by the court is done from a religious and political perspective instead of ceding to the science and public health.
> ...


You don't have to go to church to worship.  If there really is a Jesus like the one in the bible I doubt that he would want people to risk their lives and the lives of others by going to church.


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 14, 2020)

jasonnfree said:


> Zorro! said:
> 
> 
> > JackOfNoTrades said:
> ...


My family members haven't backed up one bit from this Covid thing in fear, and they have been going to church just like they always have since the thing started (we all have). They are in their 80's and above.


----------



## evenflow1969 (Dec 14, 2020)

ChemEngineer said:


> U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> 
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) restrictions on indoor worship services, agreeing with religious groups they are unconstitutional.
> ...


I have started a Christmas thread! I  would like to invite all on this thread to spread some holliday cheer. Please come over and wish everyone one a merry Christmas no matter their political leanings.  I would greatly appreciate it!


----------



## HenryBHough (Dec 14, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Liberals don't attend church!



True.

But they do burn them......and that's hard to do without at least visiting.  So they DO attend church - just not church services.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 14, 2020)

jasonnfree said:


> Zorro! said:
> 
> 
> > JackOfNoTrades said:
> ...



The part you're not understanding about freedom of religious exercise is that no one gives a shit what you think they "have to do" or what you think "Jesus would want."  No one HAS to give a shit, because YOU don't get a vote.  Hence the word "freedom".

So I'll tell you what, Pope jasonnfree:  you practice your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, however you think they require, and you mind your own fucking business about how other people practice theirs.  Try withholding your edicts on what is and isn't needed until someone asks you.

You don't have to blather nonsense to be a leftist.  It just seems to be the most common choice.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 14, 2020)

HenryBHough said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Liberals don't attend church!
> ...



I don't think you can consider standing outside and throwing Molotov cocktails through the windows to be "visiting".


----------



## Zorro! (Dec 14, 2020)

jasonnfree said:


> Zorro! said:
> 
> 
> > JackOfNoTrades said:
> ...


That's the thing about Freedom, it's not up to you or the government, how worship takes place.

_Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion; or abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble.._.​​The government can issue a lot of regulations about a number of things, be satisfied with that and understand that this is an area where regulation is prohibited.


----------



## hadit (Dec 14, 2020)

Blaine Sweeter said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > ChemEngineer said:
> ...


Guess he really did appoint quality judges then, huh?


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 14, 2020)

hadit said:


> Guess he really did appoint quality judges then, huh?


I was thinking of what I would say to georgia voters if I were campaigning for the two republicans

they are both borderline never trumpers so it cant be a reward for their loyal service

but they did lend two votes for making mitch maconnell senate majority leader where he accomplished - practically nothing for trump voters

except confirm conservative judges who turned their back on trump voters when we really needed them

so I guess all I can say is vote for the repubs because the democrats are worse

and they really are

as bad as things are now a democrat run senate will be much worse

but thats not very much to keep the spirits up


----------



## Zorro! (Dec 14, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Guess he really did appoint quality judges then, huh?
> ...


Fake News.  Trump/McConnell completely reformed the judiciary returning it to it's constitutional moorings.


> ... except confirm conservative judges who turned their back on trump voters when we really needed them...


Constitutional judges follow the Constitution and the Law, they do not twist themselves into pretzels to reach a particular political outcome.  Depending on how well the Conservative position complies with the Constitution and the Text, this absolutely can cut against conservatives, which we accept.  Further, Constitutionalist judges stay in their lane, that is they do not exceed their authority, that is, what you are calling "not rendering conservative positions" is often simply a case of the Court saying this is not a question for the Court, this is a question for the elected branches to settle, which, when that is the case, is the right decision.  





> ... so I guess all I can say is vote for the repubs because the democrats are worse and they really are as bad as things are now a democrat run senate will be much worse but thats not very much to keep the spirits up...


Be of good cheer, even if they win both seats, McConnell will retain veto power as Manchin, who really should switch parties if he wants an easy re-election in his deep red state, has already said that he will not be the 50th vote for any of the Dems wild schemes like adding fake states to gerrymander the US Senate, or destroying the Supreme Court by stacking it with additional judges or even ending the filibuster.

And of course these GA runoffs are important, Warnock is a hair on fire America hating nut burger.


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 14, 2020)

Zorro! said:


> Constitutional judges follow the Constitution and the Law, they do not twist themselves into pretzels to reach a particular political outcome.


Yes and no

the Constitution means whatever 5 demigods in black robes say it means

if libs ever take control of the court you will see what I mean


----------



## Zorro! (Dec 14, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Zorro! said:
> 
> 
> > Constitutional judges follow the Constitution and the Law, they do not twist themselves into pretzels to reach a particular political outcome.
> ...


Libs controlled the Court for more than 50 years, so I'm perfectly clear on what it means to live under a Liberal Court.  I'm looking forward to a Conservative Court that leaves the Legislating to Legislators.


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 14, 2020)

Zorro! said:


> I'm looking forward to a Conservative Court that leaves the Legislating to Legislators.


I hope they are conservatives

but we are not off to a great start so far


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 16, 2020)

Cecilie1200 said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > Zorro! said:
> ...


Well stated in an uhhh ummm rudimentary way... LOL


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 16, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Zorro! said:
> 
> 
> > Constitutional judges follow the Constitution and the Law, they do not twist themselves into pretzels to reach a particular political outcome.
> ...


Yes and no, because hopefully the people will be the ultimate decider whether or not the courts have gone rogue or not. If they've gone rogue, then a rebellious revolution will come next, so if there ever was a time to be extremely watchful of the times in which we all live, then it's definitely now.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 16, 2020)

beagle9 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



One has to dumb things down if one hopes to have leftists understand it.


----------



## Zorro! (Dec 16, 2020)

beagle9 said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Zorro! said:
> ...


We have no need of a "Rebellious Revolution" in order to re-establish control over the Federal Government.  Article V gives 2/3rds of the State Legislatures the authority to draft and circulate amendments for ratification, all with no input from the Federal Government.

Revolution would be a failure of our constitution.  Why would we choose to fail rather than use this powerful tool that our Framers gave us, for just such a time as this? 

Some potential Amendments:

Balanced Budget
Ability of a State Legislature to recall their Senator on a majority vote.
Ability of a majority of the State Legislatures, by passing the identical bill, to put it on the President's desk for signature.
Implement 12 year term limits on Judges as well as Judicial filibuster, and guarantee every judicial nomination an up and down vote in the US Senate.
12 year term limits for House and Senate.
Those right there would do a great deal to bring the Federal Government back under our rightful control and it doesn't involve Americans shooting at each other.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 17, 2020)

Zorro! said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...



I think they should also consider an amendment to clean up elections.  I would definitely like to at least see them debate and brainstorm on the subject.


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 17, 2020)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Zorro! said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...


We need to all vote in person with a picture ID and evidence of where we live

so no more absentee or mail-in ballots

and use paper ballots that can be audited


----------



## MadChemist (Dec 17, 2020)

JackOfNoTrades said:


> Unfortunate result when rule by the court is done from a religious and political perspective instead of ceding to the science and public health.
> Common sense...out the window we go!



Seems like the court is supposed to rule based on the constitution.  

Did that change ?


----------



## MadChemist (Dec 17, 2020)

pknopp said:


> JackOfNoTrades said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunate result when rule by the court is done from a religious and political perspective instead of ceding to the science and public health.
> ...



Thank you for that perspective.  

I am not familiar with the case.


----------



## MadChemist (Dec 17, 2020)

LA RAM FAN said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> ...



That isn't the job of the court.

Removing someone from office is the job of the voters.

I thought there was a recall effort started in Michigan.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 17, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Zorro! said:
> ...



True, but it's still going to be a matter of debate how you balance across-the-board federal election requirements with state sovereignty.  At least, I would hope it's a matter of debate.  I'm not interested in rushing headlong into setting more precedent for federal usurpation of power and micromanagement that the Democrats can then use to demand that every state has to be just like NY and CA.  On the other hand, I think the Supreme Court missed the forest for focusing on the trees when they dismissed the Texas lawsuit for "lack of standing".  Unlike many people on the right, I don't think it was a decision born of cowardice and lack of will.  I think the more conservative members of the court were genuinely concerned about conservative principles of federalism; I also happen to think they were doing the equivalent of blowing out the candles while ignoring that the house is on fire.  The growing perception that our election system is flawed and tainted and that states are under no obligation to follow their laws or the Constitution - and that they are answerable to no one for that - is a far greater threat to our system than the encroachment on state sovereignty they were fiddling around about.


----------



## Zorro! (Dec 17, 2020)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


This is an interesting point.  While our Constitution guarantees our fundamental rights, as originally drafted, it do not speak clearly to who would have enforcement power.  This was corrected by the 14th amendment which made it clear that the Federal Government does have the power to secure individual rights, even against State encroachment.  For example, for the 70 years prior to the 14th amendment, if a State majority decided to enslave a minority population, it wasn't clear that the Federal Government was empowered to secure the rights of the minority population against this gross encroachment by the state.  Now it is perfectly clear, and the Federal government does secure our Liberty against even State encroachment.


> ... On the other hand, I think the Supreme Court missed the forest for focusing on the trees when they dismissed the Texas lawsuit for "lack of standing".  Unlike many people on the right, I don't think it was a decision born of cowardice and lack of will.  I think the more conservative members of the court were genuinely concerned about conservative principles of federalism; I also happen to think they were doing the equivalent of blowing out the candles while ignoring that the house is on fire.  The growing perception that our election system is flawed and tainted and that states are under no obligation to follow their laws or the Constitution - and that they are answerable to no one for that - is a far greater threat to our system than the encroachment on state sovereignty they were fiddling around about...


Yes.  I think the awareness of just how flawed our election systems are, snuck up on us to a certain extent, even though the realization has enough support that with greater vigilance we could have realized this some time ago.  Once an illegal ballot is in the counting box it's nearly impossible for a Court to identify it and remove it.  At the point that the Court got this I think it was too late to fix and that any attempts by the Court to "fix" it, would ultimately cause more damage that a Biden presidency until 2024.  Let's face it.  Had the Court attempted to undo the election, our cities would be on fire right now.  The time to fix these systems was prior to the voting taking place, and the GOP failed on this front, both at the State Legislature level and the Federal Congress, both entities, unlike the Court, directly tasked by the Constitution to ensure election integrity. 

Next time you hear any Republican Legislator, either on the State or Federal Level complaining about our election system, ask them for a copy of the bill they have submitted to remedy our voting practices.  Like the song says: "A little less talk, and lot more action."


----------



## Zorro! (Dec 17, 2020)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Zorro! said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...


That can be handled now through legislation, per Article 1 Section 4:

_The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations_.​​Every Lawmaker, federal or state, already has this power, it simply needs to be exercised.  I personally have a difficult time seeing any greater legislative need and would support the refusal of any legislature, Federal or State, to entertain any business prior to ensuring auditable, verifiable election integrity.


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Dec 17, 2020)

Rye Catcher said:


> Zorro! said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You and Gavin lost, deal with it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 17, 2020)

Zorro! said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...



True, but the reason it's a balancing act is that the states exist to act as a bulwark against FEDERAL encroachment.  The whole point of our system is not to put all our eggs into ANY one basket.  Any entity that has the sole power to protect our liberties also has the sole power to fail in protecting them, and leave us with nowhere else to go for help.

We need to make it clear that the states do NOT have unlimited power to do as they please and ignore laws as they please, but the federal government ALSO does not have unlimited power to control the states.  States have sovereignty, but they are also a part of a larger nation, and have responsibilities to the other states.



Zorro! said:


> > ... On the other hand, I think the Supreme Court missed the forest for focusing on the trees when they dismissed the Texas lawsuit for "lack of standing".  Unlike many people on the right, I don't think it was a decision born of cowardice and lack of will.  I think the more conservative members of the court were genuinely concerned about conservative principles of federalism; I also happen to think they were doing the equivalent of blowing out the candles while ignoring that the house is on fire.  The growing perception that our election system is flawed and tainted and that states are under no obligation to follow their laws or the Constitution - and that they are answerable to no one for that - is a far greater threat to our system than the encroachment on state sovereignty they were fiddling around about...
> 
> 
> Yes.  I think the awareness of just how flawed our election systems are, snuck up on us to a certain extent, even though the realization has enough support that with greater vigilance we could have realized this some time ago.  Once an illegal ballot is in the counting box it's nearly impossible for a Court to identify it and remove it.  At the point that the Court got this I think it was too late to fix and that any attempts by the Court to "fix" it, would ultimately cause more damage that a Biden presidency until 2024.  Let's face it.  Had the Court attempted to undo the election, our cities would be on fire right now.  The time to fix these systems was prior to the voting taking place, and the GOP failed on this front, both at the State Legislature level and the Federal Congress, both entities, unlike the Court, directly tasked by the Constitution to ensure election integrity.
> ...



What can I say?  It's human nature to get complacent and apathetic.  And fundamentally decent people tend to be naive about what indecent people will and won't do.  The Democrats planned out and timed their mail-in voting scam perfectly.  No one saw it coming ahead of time, and there wasn't enough time - or enough systemic roadblocks - to stop it.

In fairness to the GOP, many of them have been fighting to clean up our elections for a while.  Admittedly, most of that was focused on preventing people from casting votes who shouldn't be.  I don't think they, any more than anyone else, saw THIS _farrago _coming.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 17, 2020)

Zorro! said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Zorro! said:
> ...



The problem with that is that it assumes the willingness on the part of all state governments to actually exercise the power and clean things up.  Manifestly, we have states which don't give a rat's furry ass about their own laws, the US Constitution, or their obligations to the rest of us to conduct clean and fair elections.

We need to put some thought into what options the United States has when individual states go completely rogue.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Dec 17, 2020)

JustAGuy1 said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Zorro! said:
> ...



All of us who may come in contact with "covidiots" and "simps' will lose  [two new words posted in TIME (12/21 issue).  Buy a copy if want them defined.  All of the Americans will suffer longer shut downs and more infections and deaths by these two sets.


----------



## Zorro! (Dec 18, 2020)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Zorro! said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Yup.

 Article 1 Section 4:

_The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; *but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations*_.

It's time!


----------



## ChemEngineer (Dec 18, 2020)

Zorro! said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Zorro! said:
> ...


Drive the insane libs even MORE insane, if that is possible.
Imagine the riots.  Destroy and burn to get people to join your insanity, right?


----------



## beagle9 (Dec 20, 2020)

Zorro! said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Mac-7 said:
> ...


Fearing a rebellion is ridiculous, and it is exactly how we got to where we are in this country now. How many times have we seen Republicans tow the line for the establishment when the pressure is on ???? Way to many times IMHO. 

How many times have we seen foolishness, and then the apologies come quickly afterwards ??? Way to many times in my opinion. It shows terrible weakness, and worse it shows outright cowardess on our representatives part's.

How is it that these people get elected over and over again ??? Could be that election fraud has been built in for years, but seeing that America has had a belly full of it now, this election became front and center.


----------



## DarthVader (Dec 21, 2020)

Take that king Phil the 1st. N.J. religious leaders can challenge Murphy’s coronavirus restrictions, U.S. Supreme Court says


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 21, 2020)

beagle9 said:


> How is it that these people get elected over and over again ??? Could be that election fraud has been built in for years, but seeing that America has had a belly full of it now, this election became front and center.


In the case of elected republicans at the federal and state level, they dont have mobs of people, mostly young, at their disposal to riot in the streets for their issues.

contrary to what the lying lib  media would have us believe

its been reported that justice roberts was practically hysterical trying to convince the other members of the high court not to take the Texas voter fraud case because he feared the reaction of democrat street thugs

there is a system in washington that gives great power to the speaker of the house and senate majority leader and serves to intimidate individual members of congress to do as they are told

which helps explain why the republican party was so cool to trump when he got elected president

Speaker ryan in the house was a corrupt inside washington swamp rat and he wanted nothing to do with trump

so the trump agenda voted for by 74 million plus voters was largely stalled

it even helps explain why voter fraud is so easy for democrats to get away with


----------



## Thevolunteerwino (Dec 25, 2020)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Thevolunteerwino said:
> 
> 
> > I am glad someone in this coumtry has the balls to fight for our right to hather together if we want and not be subject to a marshall.law police state type lifestyle. C'mon people, We are not children.
> ...


I believe a second cousin of Manuel Labor


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jan 1, 2021)

JackOfNoTrades said:


> Unfortunate result when rule by the court is done from a religious and political perspective instead of ceding to the science and public health.
> Common sense...out the window we go!



Common sense is not common and in this case senseless.


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Jan 2, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rye Catcher said:
> ...



You and Gavin lost, deal with it.  Have you asked Gavin why he doesn't wear his mask or social distance at his dinners in NAPA?


----------



## harmonica (Jan 2, 2021)

JackOfNoTrades said:


> Unfortunate result when rule by the court is done from a religious and political perspective instead of ceding to the science and public health.
> Common sense...out the window we go!


but there is no court ruling on indoor C19 regulations
HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHA


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jan 2, 2021)

JustAGuy1 said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > JustAGuy1 said:
> ...



I have not asked "Gavin", why do you ask?  Have you asked Trump why he didn't wear a mask or respect social distancing for months at rallies and in events in the White House and the Rose Garden, events which exposed a large number of his supporters which in fact infected some of them and passed the infection on?

Have you asked the Governors of nine states who have not asked people to wear masks and respect social distancing why?  Or are you one of the stupid biddable set which believes putting a mask on takes away your right to freedom of expression.?


----------



## MadChemist (Jan 2, 2021)

jillian said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> ...



What did it really say ?  Please share.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jan 7, 2021)

Leftists are America's fascists. More government, more control, poorer people, stupider people.


----------



## LuckyDuck (Jan 7, 2021)

jillian said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Gov. Newsom’s Indoor Worship Bans
> ...


1.  The United States Constitution over-rules any city, county or state laws.
2.  First Amendment: (in part) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
This supersedes not only Congress, but also, Governors, State Legislators, Mayors, or Town Councils.  There's nothing Fascist about it.
You and your ilk, spew the words, Fascist, Nazi and Racist around so much, even on things that have nothing to do with any of it.  Using them frequently in all matters you disagree with, completely diminishes their impact.  You just make an embarrassment of yourself.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jan 7, 2021)

Actions like that ensure that packing the Supreme Court moves up on the agenda.

There MUST be one and only religion:  The Party.


----------

