# It Has Started: Activist Court Rewrites Law



## skews13

Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”




			Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
		


Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Perhaps California should take a consensus of the people by putting it to a vote to see if they wish to remain on unconstitutional edicts made by authoritarian dictators who think their word is law.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## pknopp

This isn't an "alleged burden". It's an actual burden. Argue if you wish it was justified (I disagree) but you can't argue it was an "alleged burden".


----------



## progressive hunter

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.


sorry comrade but case law has no place when discussing the constitution,,,


----------



## airplanemechanic

The freedom of religion clause in the constitution doesn't have an asterisk by it saying "except during a pandemic".

The court finally got something right.


----------



## Wyatt earp

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.


Don't go to church then, you fucking control freak


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.


What did they re-write?

The 1st and 14th Amendments?

 

You need to go back to law school.


----------



## airplanemechanic

bear513 said:


> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't go to church then, you fucking control freak
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure the last time he was in a church was at his grandmas funeral.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.



  The First Amendment is absolutely clear on the freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly.  This latest court ruling did not go far enough in upholding these rights, against lesser laws, and even illegal dictates from corrupt officials, that violate these freedoms.

  There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that even hints at any authority on the part of any part of government to make up a fake _“pandemic”_ and use it as an excuse to violate the rights of the people that the Constitution explicitly asserts.


----------



## DukeU

skews13 said:


> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.


Maybe you need to polish up a bit on your history. Freedom is the fundamental reason America was founded. The courts have no right or authority to undo those freedoms established in our Constitution.


----------



## Muhammed

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.


Fuck off. If you don't agree with the first amendment right to peaceably assemble, write to your congressman about a constitutional amendment. Good luck you that, you fucking anti-American piece of shit.


----------



## MisterBeale

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.


----------



## Lysistrata

The freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly apply to all persons regardless of sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, or any other characteristic. Our laws should NEVER, EVER prefer one over another or establish one religion/ideology over another. People who attend mass gatherings endanger the American People in this time of pandemic. If you want to contract the virus and have you and your loved ones die of it, so be it. You earned it. You have a right to be a dirty person. But don't spread it among the rest of us.


----------



## Natural Citizen

I keep telling people that case law is irrelevant. 

We have a very good guide in the constitution. And it's all that is necessary.

The more you know....


----------



## toobfreak

skews13 said:


> *Activist Court Rewrites Law*





Don't you mean MAJORITY OPINION?  6-3 isn't activist but the majority, the popular vote.  Now watch this fool take the ACTIVIST action  of wanting to STACK THE COURT with 11 or 13 people until they get the vote THEY want, in an effort to counter "activism."


----------



## skews13

DukeU said:


> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to polish up a bit on your history. Freedom is the fundamental reason America was founded. The courts have no right or authority to undo those freedoms established in our Constitution.
Click to expand...


Tell that to Native Americans, African, and Chinese slaves. What a dumbass statement. And right in tune with the entitled asshole mindset. And lets not forget the rights of women. Which according to the good book are subserviants, to the entitled asshole mindset.

Every state has the duty to protect its citizens above everything else. Rights don't mean anything when you're dead. Or enslaved.

And what about those "Free" Americans that can become infected with the virus, after coming into contact with one of those entitled assholes, who think their "right" to worship, is above everyone else's "right", to not be infected?  Of forced to have to endure their ignorance, because they exercise their "Freedom" from religion?

So they don't have the same "Freedoms". Is that what you're insinuating?

So in your estimation, burning women to death, or drowning them, because the might be percieved by one of these fundamentalist shit for brains assholes, of being a witch, should be a First Amendment right also, based on this new ruling by the newly packed court?

What other religious atrocities from the old world should we reinstate to accomodate these worhippers "rights"?


----------



## Desperado

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.


The hell with the lesbo jewish judge.  it is against the constitution to prohibit religious worship


----------



## OldLady

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.


I'm very, very sorry to hear this.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lysistrata said:


> The freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly apply to all persons regardless of sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, or any other characteristic. Our laws should NEVER, EVER prefer one over another or establish one religion/ideology over another. People who attend mass gatherings endanger the American People in this time of pandemic. If you want to contract the virus and have you and your loved ones die of it, so be it. You earned it. You have a right to be a dirty person. But don't spread it among the rest of us.


In the same post you state that these rights exist and should not be excluded on religion, then say the exact opposite.

 

I have never seen a more complete 180 in the same fucking post.

WOW!!!


----------



## Jarlaxle

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.



Dude...


----------



## SassyIrishLass

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.



Courts don't write law, they interput law and make decisions.

Dumbass


----------



## OldLady

With any luck at all, 99.9% of ministers in these critical areas will keep their doors closed and worship on line in order to keep their parishioners safe until the case #'s come down and public health officials give the all clear.  Many outbreaks have been tied to church services all over the country.  I agree with Kagan on this, all the way.  Let's hope it doesn't lead to a slippery slope.

_Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer, dissented from this order in a blunt opinion highlighting the possibility that her colleagues’ decision will kill people. “Justices of this Court are not scientists,” Kagan began. “Nor do we know much about public health policy. Yet today the Court displaces the judgments of experts about how to respond to a raging pandemic. … That mandate defies our caselaw, exceeds our judicial role, and risks worsening the pandemic.” She pointed out that, contrary to the court’s belief, California has not actually treated churches less favorably than secular businesses and assemblies: Political meetings, lectures, and plays are also banned, she wrote—and these “secular gatherings,” like religious worship, “are constitutionally protected” by the First Amendment. The court simply created “a special exception for worship services.”

“To state the obvious, judges do not know what scientists and public health experts do,” Kagan explained. “So it is alarming that the Court second-guesses the judgments of expert officials, and displaces their conclusions with its own. In the worst public health crisis in a century, this foray into armchair epidemiology cannot end well.”_


----------



## Desperado

OldLady said:


> With any luck at all, 99.9% of ministers in these critical areas will keep their doors closed and worship on line in order to keep their parishioners safe until the case #'s come down and public health officials give the all clear.  Many outbreaks have been tied to church services all over the country.  I agree with Kagan on this, all the way.  Let's hope it doesn't lead to a slippery slope.
> 
> _Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer, dissented from this order in a blunt opinion highlighting the possibility that her colleagues’ decision will kill people. “Justices of this Court are not scientists,” Kagan began. “Nor do we know much about public health policy. Yet today the Court displaces the judgments of experts about how to respond to a raging pandemic. … That mandate defies our caselaw, exceeds our judicial role, and risks worsening the pandemic.” She pointed out that, contrary to the court’s belief, California has not actually treated churches less favorably than secular businesses and assemblies: Political meetings, lectures, and plays are also banned, she wrote—and these “secular gatherings,” like religious worship, “are constitutionally protected” by the First Amendment. The court simply created “a special exception for worship services.”
> 
> “To state the obvious, judges do not know what scientists and public health experts do,” Kagan explained. “So it is alarming that the Court second-guesses the judgments of expert officials, and displaces their conclusions with its own. In the worst public health crisis in a century, this foray into armchair epidemiology cannot end well.”_


That is fine and dandy... let the individual church decide but not the government.  when it come to religion the government  should have absolutely no say


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

We need to let nature take its course.

I am a huge proponent of Natural Selection.


----------



## DukeU

skews13 said:


> And what about those "Free" Americans that can become infected with the virus, after coming into contact with one of those entitled assholes, who think their "right" to worship, is above everyone else's "right", to not be infected? Of forced to have to endure their ignorance, because they exercise their "Freedom" from religion?


LOL

If you are wearing your mask and social distancing you're safe right? You are also free to stay at home if you are scared or are vulnerable. But you are not free to suppress my freedoms.


----------



## Wyatt earp

skews13 said:


> DukeU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to polish up a bit on your history. Freedom is the fundamental reason America was founded. The courts have no right or authority to undo those freedoms established in our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to Native Americans, African, and Chinese slaves. What a dumbass statement. And right in tune with the entitled asshole mindset. And lets not forget the rights of women. Which according to the good book are subserviants, to the entitled asshole mindset.
> 
> Every state has the duty to protect its citizens above everything else. Rights don't mean anything when you're dead. Or enslaved.
> 
> And what about those "Free" Americans that can become infected with the virus, after coming into contact with one of those entitled assholes, who think their "right" to worship, is above everyone else's "right", to not be infected?  Of forced to have to endure their ignorance, because they exercise their "Freedom" from religion?
> 
> So they don't have the same "Freedoms". Is that what you're insinuating?
> 
> So in your estimation, burning women to death, or drowning them, because the might be percieved by one of these fundamentalist shit for brains assholes, of being a witch, should be a First Amendment right also, based on this new ruling by the newly packed court?
> 
> What other religious atrocities from the old world should we reinstate to accomodate these worhippers "rights"?
Click to expand...

Move asshole if you don't like the constitution


----------



## DukeU

Lysistrata said:


> But don't spread it among the rest of us.


It's real simple, don't assemble. You have that right.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

DukeU said:


> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what about those "Free" Americans that can become infected with the virus, after coming into contact with one of those entitled assholes, who think their "right" to worship, is above everyone else's "right", to not be infected? Of forced to have to endure their ignorance, because they exercise their "Freedom" from religion?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> If you are wearing your mask and social distancing you're safe right? You are also free to stay at home if you are scared or are vulnerable. But you are not free to suppress my freedoms.
Click to expand...

Oh, no.  It's not you protecting yourself.  You must wear it to protect OTHERS. See.

And you must NOT carry a gun because it is not safe for OTHERS.  Forget yourself.  You peon.

It's the ultimate flimflam.  This is the biggest hoodwink I have ever witnessed and can now confirm that 99% of the world's population is gullible as fuck.


----------



## westwall

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.








What part of the Constitution do you not understand?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.


OP is idiotic. Ca's ban was obviously and deliberately unConstitutional and was all about people control; not healthcare.


----------



## OldLady

Desperado said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> With any luck at all, 99.9% of ministers in these critical areas will keep their doors closed and worship on line in order to keep their parishioners safe until the case #'s come down and public health officials give the all clear.  Many outbreaks have been tied to church services all over the country.  I agree with Kagan on this, all the way.  Let's hope it doesn't lead to a slippery slope.
> 
> _Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer, dissented from this order in a blunt opinion highlighting the possibility that her colleagues’ decision will kill people. “Justices of this Court are not scientists,” Kagan began. “Nor do we know much about public health policy. Yet today the Court displaces the judgments of experts about how to respond to a raging pandemic. … That mandate defies our caselaw, exceeds our judicial role, and risks worsening the pandemic.” She pointed out that, contrary to the court’s belief, California has not actually treated churches less favorably than secular businesses and assemblies: Political meetings, lectures, and plays are also banned, she wrote—and these “secular gatherings,” like religious worship, “are constitutionally protected” by the First Amendment. The court simply created “a special exception for worship services.”
> 
> “To state the obvious, judges do not know what scientists and public health experts do,” Kagan explained. “So it is alarming that the Court second-guesses the judgments of expert officials, and displaces their conclusions with its own. In the worst public health crisis in a century, this foray into armchair epidemiology cannot end well.”_
> 
> 
> 
> That is fine and dandy... let the individual church decide but not the government.  when it come to religion the government  should have absolutely no say
Click to expand...

And the majority, even of evangelicals agree.  It is a small but loud number of evangelicals leading this push to ignore safety protocols.  Ironically, they have forgotten what being a Christian is all about. 

_  “We understand that part of what God is giving to us right now is an invitation to care for our neighbors,” said the Rt. Rev. Thomas James Brown, the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Maine. “One of the ways we can care for our neighbors is to do everything we can to slow and stop the spread of this virus. That means following every possible safety protocol.”









						Most churches are following Maine’s COVID-19 restrictions, even as loud minority fights them
					

That small group of evangelical churches has made a loud show of pushing back against the state’s restrictions.




					bangordailynews.com
				



_


----------



## cnm

DukeU said:


> Freedom is the fundamental reason America was founded.


Freedom's what the slave states voted for, all right.


----------



## DukeU

cnm said:


> Freedom's what the slave states voted for, all right.


Good thing we righted that wrong huh?


----------



## airplanemechanic

Lysistrata said:


> The freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly apply to all persons regardless of sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, or any other characteristic. Our laws should NEVER, EVER prefer one over another or establish one religion/ideology over another. People who attend mass gatherings endanger the American People in this time of pandemic. If you want to contract the virus and have you and your loved ones die of it, so be it. You earned it. You have a right to be a dirty person. But don't spread it among the rest of us.



Good, then don't do something you've never done anyway, attend church.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

In November thousands gathered in secret to celebrate the wedding of the grandson of a revered Rabbi.  No spike in deaths.


----------



## Crepitus

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.


Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.


----------



## airplanemechanic

Crepitus said:


> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
Click to expand...


Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that? 

The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.


----------



## OldLady

CrusaderFrank said:


> In November thousands gathered in secret to celebrate the wedding of the grandson of a revered Rabbi.  No spike in deaths.


There was such a spike in this community that the mayor threatened to lock them down.  Yes, that kind of behavior led to many more cases.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

cnm said:


> DukeU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom is the fundamental reason America was founded.
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom's what the slave states voted for, all right.
Click to expand...

Objection, relevance.


----------



## Concerned American

skews13 said:


> But the court’s new conservative majority


The court has been conservative for at least the last 20 years.  You think that is a NEW majority?  SMH.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

OldLady said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> In November thousands gathered in secret to celebrate the wedding of the grandson of a revered Rabbi.  No spike in deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was such a spike in this community that the mayor threatened to lock them down.  Yes, that kind of behavior led to many more cases.
Click to expand...

Don't care.  Freedom is freedom.  

Protect yourself if you are afraid.

Public safety is the easiest and most widely used excuse for totalitarianism.


----------



## cnm

DukeU said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom's what the slave states voted for, all right.
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing we righted that wrong huh?
Click to expand...

When you were founded?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

OldLady said:


> With any luck at all, 99.9% of ministers in these critical areas will keep their doors closed and worship on line in order to keep their parishioners safe until the case #'s come down and public health officials give the all clear.  Many outbreaks have been tied to church services all over the country.  I agree with Kagan on this, all the way.  Let's hope it doesn't lead to a slippery slope.
> 
> _Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer, dissented from this order in a blunt opinion highlighting the possibility that her colleagues’ decision will kill people. “Justices of this Court are not scientists,” Kagan began. “Nor do we know much about public health policy. Yet today the Court displaces the judgments of experts about how to respond to a raging pandemic. … That mandate defies our caselaw, exceeds our judicial role, and risks worsening the pandemic.” She pointed out that, contrary to the court’s belief, California has not actually treated churches less favorably than secular businesses and assemblies: Political meetings, lectures, and plays are also banned, she wrote—and these “secular gatherings,” like religious worship, “are constitutionally protected” by the First Amendment. The court simply created “a special exception for worship services.”
> 
> “To state the obvious, judges do not know what scientists and public health experts do,” Kagan explained. “So it is alarming that the Court second-guesses the judgments of expert officials, and displaces their conclusions with its own. In the worst public health crisis in a century, this foray into armchair epidemiology cannot end well.”_


The Supreme Court's one and only responsibility is to decide if a given law is or is not Constitutional. It is not given the authority to decide matters of health or who is or is not an expert in any particular field. And yes those other bans are almost certainly unConstitutional as well but that is a question they were not asked. California was waay past due to be reminded they are as subject to the US Constitution as is any other State.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

cnm said:


> DukeU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom's what the slave states voted for, all right.
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing we righted that wrong huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you were founded?
Click to expand...

Go preach to the founders.  We're talking about the CURRENT state of constitutional law.  If you can't wrap your foreign communist mind around that concept, you should shut the fuck up.


----------



## Thinker101

OldLady said:


> With any luck at all, 99.9% of ministers in these critical areas will keep their doors closed and worship on line in order to keep their parishioners safe until the case #'s come down and public health officials give the all clear.  Many outbreaks have been tied to church services all over the country.  I agree with Kagan on this, all the way.  Let's hope it doesn't lead to a slippery slope.
> 
> _Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer, dissented from this order in a blunt opinion highlighting the possibility that her colleagues’ decision will kill people. “Justices of this Court are not scientists,” Kagan began. “Nor do we know much about public health policy. Yet today the Court displaces the judgments of experts about how to respond to a raging pandemic. … That mandate defies our caselaw, exceeds our judicial role, and risks worsening the pandemic.” She pointed out that, contrary to the court’s belief, California has not actually treated churches less favorably than secular businesses and assemblies: Political meetings, lectures, and plays are also banned, she wrote—and these “secular gatherings,” like religious worship, “are constitutionally protected” by the First Amendment. The court simply created “a special exception for worship services.”
> 
> “To state the obvious, judges do not know what scientists and public health experts do,” Kagan explained. “So it is alarming that the Court second-guesses the judgments of expert officials, and displaces their conclusions with its own. In the worst public health crisis in a century, this foray into armchair epidemiology cannot end well.”_


"Until the case #'s come down and public health officials give the all clear", c'mon choose one, both ain't working.


----------



## Crepitus

airplanemechanic said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...

Show me where it says you have the right to ignore temporary public health orders?

And stop lying about the death rate.  You're murdering people with your lies.


----------



## Concerned American

OldLady said:


> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm very, very sorry to hear this.
Click to expand...

I cannot believe the bullshit that I read in this thread.  Where have you commies been hiding forever.  This lockdown is unconstitutional.  They have not declared martial law.  American citizens DO NOT have to have their government's permission to do ANYTHING.  All of you backdoor fucking communists can kiss my ass.


----------



## DukeU

cnm said:


> When you were founded?


Better late than never.


----------



## OldLady

airplanemechanic said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...

*10th Amendment*
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Crepitus said:


> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore *temporary* public health orders?


Can we get a definition of "temporary" here? We're going on a year now.  It's arguable that "temporary" is no longer the case.


----------



## MisterBeale

For years, conservatives have been saying, the want to see, "*strict constructionists*" on the SCOTUS.

Now, when they have a ruling that does just that?

You get some far lefty that sees that as, *"judicial activism."*  Which is a left wing legal philosophy to get things done.


The irony in clown world is palpable.  It really is.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

OldLady said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

*14th Amendment*
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._


----------



## Crepitus

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore *temporary* public health orders?
> 
> 
> 
> Can we get a definition of "temporary" here? We're going on a year now.  It's arguable that "temporary" is no longer the case.
Click to expand...

lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Crepitus said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore *temporary* public health orders?
> 
> 
> 
> Can we get a definition of "temporary" here? We're going on a year now.  It's arguable that "temporary" is no longer the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.
Click to expand...

So, 100 years is considered "temporary" under that definition.  As long as it is not "permanent" right?


----------



## Crepitus

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *14th Amendment*
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
Click to expand...

Temporary health orders are not laws.

You kids need to stop with this "FREEDUMB" crap.  You are murdering innocent people.


----------



## OldLady

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *14th Amendment*
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
Click to expand...

You folks are the reason the US has some of the worst Covid rates in the world.  I hope you're proud.


----------



## MisterBeale

OldLady said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...



This would be true. . . but not in this case, because the Constitution DOES prohibit the States from interfering with the people in this regard. . . it is right there in the Bill of Rights, very first Amendment.

* First Amendment                *

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


What part of "NO LAW" are you having problems with?

The black plague, small pox, and many other diseases were far worse than what we are experiencing now, so you can't come back with they didn't know about "diseases" or public health threats like we have now.  That would be disingenuous.  So stop already.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Crepitus said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *14th Amendment*
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Temporary health orders are not laws.
> 
> You kids need to stop with this "FREEDUMB" crap.  You are murdering innocent people.
Click to expand...

Right.  So, no law, no obey.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

OldLady said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *14th Amendment*
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You folks are the reason the US has some of the worst Covid rates in the world.  I hope you're proud.
Click to expand...

I do not give a single fuck.

Using "public safety" to suspend unalienable rights is tyranny, PERIOD!!!!

I am prepared to fight a fucking war over this shit.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

MisterBeale said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This would be true. . . but not in this case, because the Constitution DOES prohibit the States from interfering with the people in this regard. . . it is right there in the Bill of Rights, very first Amendment.
> 
> * First Amendment                *
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> 
> What part of "NO LAW" are you having problems with?
> 
> The black plague, small pox, and many other diseases were far worse than what we are experiencing now, so you can't come back with they didn't know about "diseases" or public health threats like we have now.  That would be disingenuous.  So stop already.
Click to expand...

but, but, but,.....it's not a law.


----------



## Crepitus

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore *temporary* public health orders?
> 
> 
> 
> Can we get a definition of "temporary" here? We're going on a year now.  It's arguable that "temporary" is no longer the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, 100 years is considered "temporary" under that definition.  As long as it is not "permanent" right?
Click to expand...

You asked for a definition, not a time limit.  I gave you one.  You want a different answer ask the correct question next time.


----------



## MisterBeale

Crepitus said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *14th Amendment*
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Temporary health orders are not laws.
> 
> You kids need to stop with this "FREEDUMB" crap.  You are murdering innocent people.
Click to expand...


You have no proof that they are "temporary."

They told us "two weeks."

They told us a month.

They keep saying temporary. . .it has turned out to be nothing but lies.

Cold and flues come and go, as will this thing, over and over again.

Health orders CANNOT take the place of laws.  They go unchecked.


----------



## Crepitus

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *14th Amendment*
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You folks are the reason the US has some of the worst Covid rates in the world.  I hope you're proud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not give a single fuck.
> 
> Using "public safety" to suspend unalienable rights is tyranny, PERIOD!!!!
> 
> I am prepared to fight a fucking war over this shit.
Click to expand...

Only in trump-tard fantasies.


----------



## Concerned American

OldLady said:


> With any luck at all, 99.9% of ministers in these critical areas will keep their doors closed and worship on line in order to keep their parishioners safe until the case #'s come down and public health officials give the all clear.  Many outbreaks have been tied to church services all over the country.  I agree with Kagan on this, all the way.  Let's hope it doesn't lead to a slippery slope.
> 
> _Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer, dissented from this order in a blunt opinion highlighting the possibility that her colleagues’ decision will kill people. “Justices of this Court are not scientists,” Kagan began. “Nor do we know much about public health policy. Yet today the Court displaces the judgments of experts about how to respond to a raging pandemic. … That mandate defies our caselaw, exceeds our judicial role, and risks worsening the pandemic.” She pointed out that, contrary to the court’s belief, California has not actually treated churches less favorably than secular businesses and assemblies: Political meetings, lectures, and plays are also banned, she wrote—and these “secular gatherings,” like religious worship, “are constitutionally protected” by the First Amendment. The court simply created “a special exception for worship services.”
> 
> “To state the obvious, judges do not know what scientists and public health experts do,” Kagan explained. “So it is alarming that the Court second-guesses the judgments of expert officials, and displaces their conclusions with its own. In the worst public health crisis in a century, this foray into armchair epidemiology cannot end well.”_


You have your head so firmly planted up your der


OldLady said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

First Amendment guarantees the right to ASSEMBLE--do you think you can pick and choose what parts of the constitution you want to listen to?  I believe the first amendment is a power that is delegated to the US by the constitution.  Clean your stomach window or pull your head out of your ass.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Crepitus said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *14th Amendment*
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Temporary health orders are not laws.
> 
> You kids need to stop with this "FREEDUMB" crap.  You are murdering innocent people.
Click to expand...


Nowhere in the Constitution are it's amendments ever meant to be temporary.

They're written in stone unless legal process changes them


----------



## Crepitus

MisterBeale said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *14th Amendment*
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Temporary health orders are not laws.
> 
> You kids need to stop with this "FREEDUMB" crap.  You are murdering innocent people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no proof that they are "temporary."
> 
> They told us "two weeks."
> 
> They told us a month.
> 
> They keep saying temporary. . .it has turned out to be nothing but lies.
> 
> Cold and flues come and go, as will this thing, over and over again.
> 
> Health orders CANNOT take the place of laws.  They go unchecked.
Click to expand...

Cold a flu?

Are you high?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Crepitus said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *14th Amendment*
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You folks are the reason the US has some of the worst Covid rates in the world.  I hope you're proud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not give a single fuck.
> 
> Using "public safety" to suspend unalienable rights is tyranny, PERIOD!!!!
> 
> I am prepared to fight a fucking war over this shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in trump-tard fantasies.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure my bullets are real.

Pretty sure your tyranny is also real.


----------



## Crepitus

Concerned American said:


> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the court’s new conservative majority
> 
> 
> 
> The court has been conservative for at least the last 20 years.  You think that is a NEW majority?  SMH.
Click to expand...

Conservative, yes.

Rabidly conservitard?  Not until tRump.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Crepitus said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the court’s new conservative majority
> 
> 
> 
> The court has been conservative for at least the last 20 years.  You think that is a NEW majority?  SMH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservative, yes.
> 
> Rabidly conservitard?  Not until tRump.
Click to expand...

I am sorry that the Court refuses to allow your further tyranny and complete shitting on individual rights.  Those evil bastards.


----------



## Concerned American

OldLady said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *14th Amendment*
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You folks are the reason the US has some of the worst Covid rates in the world.  I hope you're proud.
Click to expand...

It must be terrible to live in such fear.  I and five members of my family were tested positive at the hospital for covid during the holidays.  One had a severe flu (treated with OTC remedies), one had minor cold symptoms and four had NO symptoms at all.  We are all recovered thank you very much.  We all feel that this is a partisan political ploy that you sheep have bought into.


----------



## Crepitus

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *14th Amendment*
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You folks are the reason the US has some of the worst Covid rates in the world.  I hope you're proud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not give a single fuck.
> 
> Using "public safety" to suspend unalienable rights is tyranny, PERIOD!!!!
> 
> I am prepared to fight a fucking war over this shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in trump-tard fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty sure my bullets are real.
> 
> Pretty sure your tyranny is also real.
Click to expand...

A.  Online tough guys are inevitably pussy-bois, so you can cram those bullets up your ass with your sex toys.

B.  Public health orders are not tyranny. Nor will you endlessly repeating that lie change anything.


----------



## westwall

Crepitus said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore *temporary* public health orders?
> 
> 
> 
> Can we get a definition of "temporary" here? We're going on a year now.  It's arguable that "temporary" is no longer the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.
Click to expand...










The big problem you have is there is no justification for closing churches down when you allow bars and liquor stores to remain open.  Either you close everything down, or you don't.  That's where you idiots fucked up.


----------



## OldLady

MisterBeale said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This would be true. . . but not in this case, because the Constitution DOES prohibit the States from interfering with the people in this regard. . . it is right there in the Bill of Rights, very first Amendment.
> 
> * First Amendment                *
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> 
> What part of "NO LAW" are you having problems with?
> 
> The black plague, small pox, and many other diseases were far worse than what we are experiencing now, so you can't come back with they didn't know about "diseases" or public health threats like we have now.  That would be disingenuous.  So stop already.
Click to expand...

Outbreaks of small pox were local affairs and were handled locally.  This is a pandemic.


----------



## Crepitus

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the court’s new conservative majority
> 
> 
> 
> The court has been conservative for at least the last 20 years.  You think that is a NEW majority?  SMH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservative, yes.
> 
> Rabidly conservitard?  Not until tRump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sorry that the Court refuses to allow your further tyranny and complete shitting on individual rights.  Those evil bastards.
Click to expand...

Don't be stupider than you have to be.

What they did was murder a bunch of nice old folks to keep you and your retarded friends happy.


----------



## westwall

OldLady said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *14th Amendment*
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You folks are the reason the US has some of the worst Covid rates in the world.  I hope you're proud.
Click to expand...







No, it's because of dumbass DEMOCRAT governors.


----------



## westwall

Crepitus said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the court’s new conservative majority
> 
> 
> 
> The court has been conservative for at least the last 20 years.  You think that is a NEW majority?  SMH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservative, yes.
> 
> Rabidly conservitard?  Not until tRump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sorry that the Court refuses to allow your further tyranny and complete shitting on individual rights.  Those evil bastards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't be stupider than you have to be.
> 
> What they did was murder a bunch of nice old folks to keep you and your retarded friends happy.
Click to expand...








Ummmm, that's governor cuomo, dumbass.  Not these religious people.

Get your facts straight.


----------



## Crepitus

westwall said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore *temporary* public health orders?
> 
> 
> 
> Can we get a definition of "temporary" here? We're going on a year now.  It's arguable that "temporary" is no longer the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The big problem you have is there is no justification for closing churches down when you allow bars and liquor stores to remain open.  Either you close everything down, or you don't.  That's where you idiots fucked up.
Click to expand...

I'm all for.closing everything down in hotspots.  You're gonna hafta talk to the conservitards running various states about that.


----------



## DukeU

Crepitus said:


> B. Public health orders are not tyranny. Nor will you endlessly repeating that lie change anything.


So, hide and wait. Just don't expect everyone to cower to these unconstitutional orders.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

westwall said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore *temporary* public health orders?
> 
> 
> 
> Can we get a definition of "temporary" here? We're going on a year now.  It's arguable that "temporary" is no longer the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The big problem you have is there is no justification for closing churches down when you allow bars and liquor stores to remain open.  Either you close everything down, or you don't.  That's where you idiots fucked up.
Click to expand...


She'll never grasp it, waaay too far down the demoquack rabbit hole


----------



## OldLady

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> I do not give a single fuck.


Obviously.  Just don't hide behind a pastor's robes to justify your disregard for your fellow citizens.


----------



## Crepitus

westwall said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the court’s new conservative majority
> 
> 
> 
> The court has been conservative for at least the last 20 years.  You think that is a NEW majority?  SMH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservative, yes.
> 
> Rabidly conservitard?  Not until tRump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sorry that the Court refuses to allow your further tyranny and complete shitting on individual rights.  Those evil bastards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't be stupider than you have to be.
> 
> What they did was murder a bunch of nice old folks to keep you and your retarded friends happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, that's governor cuomo, dumbass.  Not these religious people.
> 
> Get your facts straight.
Click to expand...

Bars were and are closed in new York.


----------



## Meathead

Lysistrata said:


> The freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly apply to all persons regardless of sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, or any other characteristic. Our laws should NEVER, EVER prefer one over another or establish one religion/ideology over another. People who attend mass gatherings endanger the American People in this time of pandemic. If you want to contract the virus and have you and your loved ones die of it, so be it. You earned it. You have a right to be a dirty person. But don't spread it among the rest of us.


As a fat person with doubtless the maladies that occur I understand your personal concern, but your being fat should not limit the Constitutional rights of others.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

OldLady said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This would be true. . . but not in this case, because the Constitution DOES prohibit the States from interfering with the people in this regard. . . it is right there in the Bill of Rights, very first Amendment.
> 
> * First Amendment                *
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> 
> What part of "NO LAW" are you having problems with?
> 
> The black plague, small pox, and many other diseases were far worse than what we are experiencing now, so you can't come back with they didn't know about "diseases" or public health threats like we have now.  That would be disingenuous.  So stop already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Outbreaks of small pox were local affairs and were handled locally.  This is a pandemic.
Click to expand...

We already know your excuse for shitting all over individual liberty.  You have to repeat that pathetic excuse.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

OldLady said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not give a single fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously.  Just don't hide behind a pastor's robes to justify your disregard for your fellow citizens.
Click to expand...

My fellow citizens are responsible for their own safety.

How's that?


----------



## DukeU

OldLady said:


> Outbreaks of small pox were local affairs and were handled locally. This is a pandemic.


Been to Walmart lately? Home Depot or Lowes?  There are thousands of people in these places daily during this "pandemic".


----------



## SassyIrishLass

OldLady said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not give a single fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously.  Just don't hide behind a pastor's robes to justify your disregard for your fellow citizens.
Click to expand...


A pastor didn't write the First you deluded old crow


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Crepitus said:


> 'm all for.closing everything down in hotspots. You're gonna hafta talk to the conservitards running various states about that.



You may be, but our Constitution is not.


----------



## OldLady

MisterBeale said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *14th Amendment*
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Temporary health orders are not laws.
> 
> You kids need to stop with this "FREEDUMB" crap.  You are murdering innocent people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no proof that they are "temporary."
> 
> They told us "two weeks."
> 
> They told us a month.
> 
> They keep saying temporary. . .it has turned out to be nothing but lies.
> 
> Cold and flues come and go, as will this thing, over and over again.
> 
> Health orders CANNOT take the place of laws.  They go unchecked.
Click to expand...

Our churches were closed for two months.  They've been open since.  Schools were closed through June but have all been green lighted to reopen since September.  

The restrictions are as temporary as the Germ allows.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Crepitus said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the court’s new conservative majority
> 
> 
> 
> The court has been conservative for at least the last 20 years.  You think that is a NEW majority?  SMH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservative, yes.
> 
> Rabidly conservitard?  Not until tRump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sorry that the Court refuses to allow your further tyranny and complete shitting on individual rights.  Those evil bastards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't be stupider than you have to be.
> 
> What they did was murder a bunch of nice old folks to keep you and your retarded friends happy.
Click to expand...

Murder?
 
And you accuse me of hyperbole.  Jesus.


----------



## airplanemechanic

DukeU said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Outbreaks of small pox were local affairs and were handled locally. This is a pandemic.
> 
> 
> 
> Been to Walmart lately? Home Depot or Lowes?  There are thousands possibly of people in these places daily during this "pandemic".
Click to expand...


I was thinking the same thing. It's ok to go to Wal Mart and be packed into that store and buy a bunch of Chinese crap, but go to Church and worship God? How DARE you!! In the middle of a PAN-DEMocratIC!!!

Strip clubs open, churches closed.









						California: Churches still closed while strip clubs reopen
					

(DAILY WIRE) – A judge ordered strip clubs reopened in San Diego earlier this month, leading a lawyer from a law firm representing multiple churches in California to protest what he described as "a constitutional travesty." San Diego Superior Court judge Joel R. Wohlfeil issued a temporary...




					www.wnd.com


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

OldLady said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *14th Amendment*
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Temporary health orders are not laws.
> 
> You kids need to stop with this "FREEDUMB" crap.  You are murdering innocent people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no proof that they are "temporary."
> 
> They told us "two weeks."
> 
> They told us a month.
> 
> They keep saying temporary. . .it has turned out to be nothing but lies.
> 
> Cold and flues come and go, as will this thing, over and over again.
> 
> Health orders CANNOT take the place of laws.  They go unchecked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our churches were closed for two months.  They've been open since.  Schools were closed through June but have all been green lighted to reopen since September.
> 
> The restrictions are as temporary as the Germ allows.
Click to expand...

No.  Restrictions are as "temporary" as DICTATORS ALLOW!!!!

You need to move to a county that gives not one single fuck about liberty and leave us alone.


----------



## OldLady

SassyIrishLass said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not give a single fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously.  Just don't hide behind
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Crepitus said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the court’s new conservative majority
> 
> 
> 
> The court has been conservative for at least the last 20 years.  You think that is a NEW majority?  SMH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservative, yes.
> 
> Rabidly conservitard?  Not until tRump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sorry that the Court refuses to allow your further tyranny and complete shitting on individual rights.  Those evil bastards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't be stupider than you have to be.
> 
> What they did was murder a bunch of nice old folks to keep you and your retarded friends happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, that's governor cuomo, dumbass.  Not these religious people.
> 
> Get your facts straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bars were and are closed in new York.
Click to expand...

And in Maine.  The only thing still closed.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

airplanemechanic said:


> DukeU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Outbreaks of small pox were local affairs and were handled locally. This is a pandemic.
> 
> 
> 
> Been to Walmart lately? Home Depot or Lowes?  There are thousands possibly of people in these places daily during this "pandemic".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was thinking the same thing. It's ok to go to Wal Mart and be packed into that store and buy a bunch of Chinese crap, but go to Church and worship God? How DARE you!! In the middle of a PAN-DEMocratIC!!!
> 
> Strip clubs open, churches closed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California: Churches still closed while strip clubs reopen
> 
> 
> (DAILY WIRE) – A judge ordered strip clubs reopened in San Diego earlier this month, leading a lawyer from a law firm representing multiple churches in California to protest what he described as "a constitutional travesty." San Diego Superior Court judge Joel R. Wohlfeil issued a temporary...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.wnd.com
Click to expand...


They're incapable of grasping it


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Concerned American said:


> First Amendment guarantees the right to ASSEMBLE--do you think you can pick and choose what parts of the constitution you want to listen to? I believe the first amendment is a power that is delegated to the US by the constitution. Clean your stomach window or pull your head out of your ass.



The first amendment also guarantees us the right to free speech, and now the Nazis are impeaching a President for exercising that right and removed a member of the House from committees for doing the same.  Do you think they care about the right to peacefully assemble?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Desperado said:


> The hell with the lesbo jewish judge. it is against the constitution to prohibit religious worship



  Also, singing/chanting (speech) and assembly.

  The First Amendment says what it says, and means what it means.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> In the same post you state that these rights exist and should not be excluded on religion, then say the exact opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen a more complete 180 in the same fucking post.



  It's a rare LIE-sistrata post in which she is coherent enough for the contradiction to be that blatant, but it's also rare for her to make any more sense than that anyway.


----------



## MisterBeale

OldLady said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *14th Amendment*
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Temporary health orders are not laws.
> 
> You kids need to stop with this "FREEDUMB" crap.  You are murdering innocent people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no proof that they are "temporary."
> 
> They told us "two weeks."
> 
> They told us a month.
> 
> They keep saying temporary. . .it has turned out to be nothing but lies.
> 
> Cold and flues come and go, as will this thing, over and over again.
> 
> Health orders CANNOT take the place of laws.  They go unchecked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our churches were closed for two months.  They've been open since.  Schools were closed through June but have all been green lighted to reopen since September.
> 
> The restrictions are as temporary as the Germ allows.
Click to expand...


You mean, they are as temporary as the politics allow.

I have looked at the IFR and CFR rates, they have nothing to do with the lock-downs and restrictions.

These orders are always based on politics.  They choose to open and close things based on holidays, shopping seasons and elections.  It is used to garner emotional responses from the public, and manipulate the economy.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

OldLady said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not give a single fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously.  Just don't hide behind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the court’s new conservative majority
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The court has been conservative for at least the last 20 years.  You think that is a NEW majority?  SMH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservative, yes.
> 
> Rabidly conservitard?  Not until tRump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sorry that the Court refuses to allow your further tyranny and complete shitting on individual rights.  Those evil bastards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't be stupider than you have to be.
> 
> What they did was murder a bunch of nice old folks to keep you and your retarded friends happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, that's governor cuomo, dumbass.  Not these religious people.
> 
> Get your facts straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bars were and are closed in new York.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And in Maine.  The only thing still closed.
Click to expand...


No they're not, a simple Google search told me that


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

OldLady said:


> Obviously. Just don't hide behind a pastor's robes to justify your disregard for your fellow citizens.



The Constitution doesn't require citizens to have any regards for each other.   This not only violates the first Amendment, but also the 14th amendment that guarantees us equal protection under the law.  The state cannot penalize one entity for being open and not penalize others that are open.


----------



## Concerned American

Concerned American said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *14th Amendment*
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You folks are the reason the US has some of the worst Covid rates in the world.  I hope you're proud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It must be terrible to live in such fear.  I and five members of my family were tested positive at the hospital for covid during the holidays.  One had a severe flu (treated with OTC remedies), one had minor cold symptoms and four had NO symptoms at all.  We are all recovered thank you very much.  We all feel that this is a partisan political ploy that you sheep have bought into.
Click to expand...




Ray From Cleveland said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> First Amendment guarantees the right to ASSEMBLE--do you think you can pick and choose what parts of the constitution you want to listen to? I believe the first amendment is a power that is delegated to the US by the constitution. Clean your stomach window or pull your head out of your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first amendment also guarantees us the right to free speech, and now the Nazis are impeaching a President for exercising that right and removed a member of the House from committees for doing the same.  Do you think they care about the right to peacefully assemble?
Click to expand...

I think you missed my point Ray.  Old Lady was trying to use the 10th amendment as a way to justify the closing of churches.  I was pointing out that the 10th does not overrule the 1st.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Don't care. Freedom is freedom.
> 
> Protect yourself if you are afraid.
> 
> Public safety is the easiest and most widely used excuse for totalitarianism.



  I wonder if the world has ever before seen such a blatant and extreme case as the #CoronaHoax2020 of a fake crisis being cooked up, just so that totalitarians can use it to create a _“public safety”_ pretext for their abuses of power?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Creepitus said:


> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore temporary public health orders?



  First Amendment to our Constitution:
_*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press; *or the right of the people peaceably to assemble*, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._​

  Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporates the First Amendment (previously held to apply only to the federal government) to all levels of government:
​_Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*_​​_Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State._​​_Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability._​​_Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void._​​_Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article._​
  And on top of all that, nearly all of these _“temporary public health orders”_ are not actual, valid laws anyway.  There is not any jurisdiction anywhere in the United states, where any one individual is given the authority to make law by unilateral dictate.  Valid laws must be created through the proper legislative process, or in many states, by putting it on the ballot to a direct vote of the people.

  These _“temporary public health orders”_ have not been enacted by any valid method, so they are not laws, we are under no legal obligation to obey them, and no part of government has any legitimate authority to attempt to enforce them.




Crapitus said:


> And stop lying about the death rate. You're murdering people with your lies.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

OldLady said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> In November thousands gathered in secret to celebrate the wedding of the grandson of a revered Rabbi.  No spike in deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was such a spike in this community that the mayor threatened to lock them down.  Yes, that kind of behavior led to many more cases.
Click to expand...


No, not true


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Bob Blaylock said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore temporary public health orders?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First Amendment to our Constitution:
> _*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press; *or the right of the people peaceably to assemble*, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._​
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporates the First Amendment (previously held to apply only to the federal government) to all levels of government:
> ​_Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*_​​_Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State._​​_Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability._​​_Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void._​​_Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article._​
> 
> 
> 
> Crapitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> And stop lying about the death rate. You're murdering people with your lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


These fools don't, can't, or refuse to understand the Constitution


----------



## OldLady

SassyIrishLass said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not give a single fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously.  Just don't hide behind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the court’s new conservative majority
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The court has been conservative for at least the last 20 years.  You think that is a NEW majority?  SMH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservative, yes.
> 
> Rabidly conservitard?  Not until tRump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sorry that the Court refuses to allow your further tyranny and complete shitting on individual rights.  Those evil bastards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't be stupider than you have to be.
> 
> What they did was murder a bunch of nice old folks to keep you and your retarded friends happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm, that's governor cuomo, dumbass.  Not these religious people.
> 
> Get your facts straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bars were and are closed in new York.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And in Maine.  The only thing still closed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they're not, a simple Google search told me that
Click to expand...

I'm not going to argue with you about it.  I live here.


CrusaderFrank said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> In November thousands gathered in secret to celebrate the wedding of the grandson of a revered Rabbi.  No spike in deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was such a spike in this community that the mayor threatened to lock them down.  Yes, that kind of behavior led to many more cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not true
Click to expand...


----------



## OldLady

CrusaderFrank said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> In November thousands gathered in secret to celebrate the wedding of the grandson of a revered Rabbi.  No spike in deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was such a spike in this community that the mayor threatened to lock them down.  Yes, that kind of behavior led to many more cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not true
Click to expand...

It was in the news


----------



## Bob Blaylock

OldLady said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, *nor prohibited by it to the State*s, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...


  Highlighting added by me to your quote.

  The First Amendment, as incorporated to the states and local governments under the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits them from violating the people's freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly.


----------



## OldLady

Bars are still closed in Maine.  Everything else is open, including churches.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

OldLady said:


> Bars are still closed in Maine.  Everything else is open, including churches.



You're lying, Google it. Bar curfews were lifted a week ago, used to be 9 PM closing.

Stop the tired game


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

OldLady said:


> Bars are still closed in Maine.  Everything else is open, including churches.



The church does not operate under state authority.  Bars need a liquor license and the state has the legal ability to control how those licenses are used.


----------



## boedicca

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.




There is no case law that says that Blue State Governors can void the Bill of Rights based on Fake Science.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.
> 
> 
> 
> So, 100 years is considered "temporary" under that definition.  As long as it is not "permanent" right?
Click to expand...


  And where, in the Constitution, is it suggested that government has the authority to enact _“laws”_ outside of the defined valid processes for doing so, or to violate the rights of the people that the Bill of Rights explicitly affirms, so long as these are only in effect _“temporarily”_?


----------



## Missourian

OldLady said:


> With any luck at all, 99.9% of ministers in these critical areas will keep their doors closed and worship on line in order to keep their parishioners safe until the case #'s come down and public health officials give the all clear.


They can CHOOSE to limit in person worship.

They cannot be COMPELLED by the government under threat of legal reprisal.

Sorry,  but this is America.

I'm sure the Chinese model is much more to your liking...comply or be welded into your homes.



What the fuck is wrong with you people.


----------



## Lastamender

WOW: Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds LIFTS mask requirement, ENDS gathering limits, OPENS businesses
					

You can talk all you want about this or that politician taking a bold step, but this is the boldest move I can even think of in the last 4 years, much less the last 12 months. Iowa’s governor…




					therightscoop.com


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Crepitus said:


> Temporary health orders are not laws.



  If they are not laws, then we are under no obligation to obey them, and government has no authority to enforce them.




Crepitus said:


> You kids need to stop with this "FREEDUMB" crap. You are murdering innocent people.


----------



## justinacolmena

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19


Sounds like a circumcision / vaccination district where New Testament preaching is absolutely forbidden.


----------



## OldLady

SassyIrishLass said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bars are still closed in Maine.  Everything else is open, including churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying, Google it. Bar curfews were lifted a week ago, used to be 9 PM closing.
> 
> Stop the tired game
Click to expand...

Bars in Maine have only been permitted to serve *outside.  * It is fucking February, if you hadn't noticed.  The bars were supposed to reopen with restrictions on November 1, but due to a surge at that time, it was postponed, and they still don't have permission to open because our numbers continued climbing until a couple weeks ago.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

OldLady said:


> You folks are the reason the US has some of the worst Covid rates in the world. I hope you're proud.



  Don't blame those of us who demand our rightful freedoms.

  Blame the corrupt politicians who have cooked up this fake _“pandemic”_ as an excuse to seize and abuse powers.

  It is those of you who stupidly obey them and allow them to get away with this shit who are to blame for allowing it to continue.  This _“pandemic”_ will last exactly as long as corrupts politicians are able to get away with exploiting it, no more or less.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.



The title of your topic is a lie.  The court didn't rewrite anything.  The Supreme Court merely decides if laws are constitutional or not.


----------



## OldLady

Bob Blaylock said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Temporary health orders are not laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they are not laws, then we are under no obligation to obey them, and government has no authority to enforce them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> You kids need to stop with this "FREEDUMB" crap. You are murdering innocent people.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Each state's governor is given the authority _per law _to impose public health orders in emergency situations.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Crepitus said:


> What they did was murder a bunch of nice old folks to keep you and your retarded friends happy.


----------



## boedicca

Bob Blaylock said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.
> 
> 
> 
> So, 100 years is considered "temporary" under that definition.  As long as it is not "permanent" right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where, in the Constitution, is it suggested that government has the authority to enact _“laws”_ outside of the defined valid processes for doing so, or to violate the rights of the people that the Bill of Rights explicitly affirms, so long as these are only in effect _“temporarily”_?
Click to expand...


I know I know!

Nowhere.


----------



## boedicca

OldLady said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Temporary health orders are not laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they are not laws, then we are under no obligation to obey them, and government has no authority to enforce them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> You kids need to stop with this "FREEDUMB" crap. You are murdering innocent people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Each state's governor is given the authority _per law _to impose public health orders in emergency situations.
Click to expand...



I call shenanigans.  The government creating a moral panic is not a true emergency.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Crepitus said:


> I'm all for.closing everything down in hotspots. You're gonna hafta talk to the conservitards running various states about that.



  How many people do you want to starve to death, or to die from other causes related from not being able to obtain the things that they need to survive, in order to assuage your insane fear of a hyperbolized flu bug?


----------



## OldLady

Bob Blaylock said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You folks are the reason the US has some of the worst Covid rates in the world. I hope you're proud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't blame thos eof us who demand our rightful freedoms.
> 
> Blame the corrupt politicians who have cooked up this fake _“pandemic”_ as an excuse to seize and abuse powers.
> 
> It is those of you who stupidly obey them and allow them to get away with this shit who are to blame for allowing it to continue.  This _“pandemic”_ will last exactly as long as corrupts politicians are able to get away with exploiting it, no more or less.
Click to expand...

How can you possibly call a Germ that has killed close to half a million Americans a hoax?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

justinacolmena said:


> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a circumcision / vaccination district where New Testament preaching is absolutely forbidden.
Click to expand...


It's a Constitutional issue... good grief


----------



## Bob Blaylock

DukeU said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> B. Public health orders are not tyranny. Nor will you endlessly repeating that lie change anything.
> 
> 
> 
> So, hide and wait. Just don't expect everyone to cower to these unconstitutional orders.
Click to expand...


  Also, those of us who are willing to take the risks of every day life to go out, work at our jobs, make an honest living, and produce the goods and services that everyone needs should not be expected to pay an extra cent in taxes to support government handouts to worthless, dead wood that chooses to hide in their mothers' basements.


----------



## bripat9643

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.


Kagan only proved that she doesn't give a shit about the law.  She only cares what Fauci the minister of health says.  Here's a clue for you:  it doesn't matter what Fauci thinks is good policy.  The laws is the law.

The Supreme Court has always had the power to strike down "burdens on religious freedom, you fucking NAZI moron.  What "case law" did they toss out?


----------



## OldLady

Bob Blaylock said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for.closing everything down in hotspots. You're gonna hafta talk to the conservitards running various states about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many people do you want to starve to death, or to die from other causes related from not being able to obtain the things that they need to survive, in order to assuage your insane fear of a hyperbolized flu bug?
Click to expand...

No one has starved, Mr. Hyperbole.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

westwall said:


> The big problem you have is there is no justification for closing churches down when you allow bars and liquor stores to remain open.





airplanemechanic said:


> Strip clubs open, churches closed.



  I think it tells us all that we need to know about their moral character when they prioritize bars, liquor stores, and strip clubs over churches.


----------



## BrokeLoser

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.


Did you bitch about the gatherings of filthy booger’s and woke white guilt whackos over summer?
Link us to those posts....if not, kindly shut the fuck up. Thanks in advance.


----------



## bripat9643

Lysistrata said:


> The freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly apply to all persons regardless of sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, or any other characteristic. Our laws should NEVER, EVER prefer one over another or establish one religion/ideology over another. People who attend mass gatherings endanger the American People in this time of pandemic. If you want to contract the virus and have you and your loved ones die of it, so be it. You earned it. You have a right to be a dirty person. But don't spread it among the rest of us.


On the one hand you claim to support religious freedom, and then you immediately attack it.  No one is forcing you to go to church, asshole.


----------



## DukeU

OldLady said:


> How can you possibly call a Germ that has killed close to half a million Americans a hoax?


*How the media is misreporting COVID-19's death toll in America*


----------



## Jarlaxle

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore *temporary* public health orders?
> 
> 
> 
> Can we get a definition of "temporary" here? We're going on a year now.  It's arguable that "temporary" is no longer the case.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we're ten months into the 3-week shutdown.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

OldLady said:


> It was in the news



  The same _“news”_ that has been complicit in deceiving and brainwashing you into living in fear and submission over this hoax built around a hyperbolized flu bug.


----------



## Jarlaxle

MisterBeale said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *14th Amendment*
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Temporary health orders are not laws.
> 
> You kids need to stop with this "FREEDUMB" crap.  You are murdering innocent people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no proof that they are "temporary."
> 
> They told us "two weeks."
> 
> They told us a month.
> 
> They keep saying temporary. . .it has turned out to be nothing but lies.
> 
> Cold and flues come and go, as will this thing, over and over again.
> 
> Health orders CANNOT take the place of laws.  They go unchecked.
Click to expand...

The tolls on the Mass Pike were temporary, they could come down when the construction bonds were paid off. The bonds were paid off in 1983. The Pike it still a tollway.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

OldLady said:


> No one has starved, Mr. Hyperbole.



  It's already happening in other parts of the world, that are economically weaker than we are.  If we continue along your path, it will happen here as well.

Virus-linked hunger tied to 10,000 child deaths each month

  Note that although the title of the article misleadingly says _“Virus-linked hunger”_, it is economic and supply issues created by the overreaction to the virus, and not the virus itself, that is causing this.

  It just now struck me that this article, being from about six months ago, that the baby shown in the picture at the head of the article, and described in the second paragraph thereof, is probably dead now, unless somehow she and her family received a lot more help than appeared to be forthcoming.

_


That hunger is already stalking Haboue Solange Boue, an infant who has lost half her former body weight of 5.5 pounds (2.5 kilograms) in the last month. With the markets closed because of coronavirus restrictions, her family sold fewer vegetables. Her mother is too malnourished to nurse her._​
  There is a face for the true impact of the #CoronaHoax2020.  This precious baby girl, and who knows how many tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of others like her.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Bob Blaylock said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't care. Freedom is freedom.
> 
> Protect yourself if you are afraid.
> 
> Public safety is the easiest and most widely used excuse for totalitarianism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the world has ever before seen such a blatant and extreme case as the #CoronaHoax2020 of a fake crisis being cooked up, just so that totalitarians can use it to create a _“public safety”_ pretext for their abuses of power?
Click to expand...

I am afraid it has gone so far that bullets will fly.

Valhalla, I am coming.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

OldLady said:


> Each state's governor is given the authority _per law _to impose public health orders in emergency situations.



  That's bullshit, and you know it.

  In any event, no otherwise valid process of lawmaking, short of the Amendment process, can legitimately override the Constitution.  Per the First Amendment, as incorporated to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment, our freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly are untouchable; and any act of government which seeks to violate these is an act of corruption and lawlessness.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

OldLady said:


> How can you possibly call a Germ that has killed close to half a million Americans a hoax?



My Uncle died late last summer from colon cancer.  He was 94 and living with one of his sons.  When things looked hopeless, my cousin called the family to come over and say their likely final goodbye.  They did, about a dozen people came to visit in the room, and then they hauled him to the VA.  When he got there, he tested positive for Covid.  

All 12 people including my father had to either quarantine or be tested.  None of them had it.  My Uncle who couldn't walk never went anywhere.  He had one nurse come in, and she tested negative as well.  So where did he get Covid from?   He died about two weeks later. 

A month or so went by and my cousins stopped by for a visit. They were furious that the hospital ruled his death as Covid instead of what really killed him which was the cancer.  One of them had a picture of his death certificate on his phone.  The VA called him a few weeks after my Uncles death to ask his opinion of the care his father received.  He told them the care was fine, but...... 

The doctor on the other end of the phone told him to take a number, because they have many complaints about patients that were ruled a Covid death instead of the real cause.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

pknopp said:


> This isn't an "alleged burden". It's an actual burden. Argue if you wish it was justified (I disagree) but you can't argue it was an "alleged burden".


Disagree.

There’s nothing in Christian doctrine or dogma which compels adherents to meet in large numbers at a specified place or time, where failing to do renders one a ‘bad’ or ‘failed’ Christian.

No right is absolute, including the rights enshrined in the First Amendment – rights that are subject to reasonable, appropriate regulation by government.

The California policy is clearly religiously neutral, motivated not by government hostility toward Christianity or religious practice, but by a warranted concern to protect public safety.

The OP is correct, this represents the start of an activist conservative Court hostile to settled, accepted Establishment Clause jurisprudence whose goal is to further conjoin church and state in violation of the Framers’ original intent.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

OldLady said:


> Each state's governor is given the authority _per law _to impose public health orders in emergency situations.



Only if it doesn't violate the Constitution.


----------



## JustAGuy1

skews13 said:


> DukeU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to polish up a bit on your history. Freedom is the fundamental reason America was founded. The courts have no right or authority to undo those freedoms established in our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to Native Americans, African, and Chinese slaves. What a dumbass statement. And right in tune with the entitled asshole mindset. And lets not forget the rights of women. Which according to the good book are subserviants, to the entitled asshole mindset.
> 
> Every state has the duty to protect its citizens above everything else. Rights don't mean anything when you're dead. Or enslaved.
> 
> And what about those "Free" Americans that can become infected with the virus, after coming into contact with one of those entitled assholes, who think their "right" to worship, is above everyone else's "right", to not be infected?  Of forced to have to endure their ignorance, because they exercise their "Freedom" from religion?
> 
> So they don't have the same "Freedoms". Is that what you're insinuating?
> 
> So in your estimation, burning women to death, or drowning them, because the might be percieved by one of these fundamentalist shit for brains assholes, of being a witch, should be a First Amendment right also, based on this new ruling by the newly packed court?
> 
> What other religious atrocities from the old world should we reinstate to accomodate these worhippers "rights"?
Click to expand...


You get more demented everyday. 


"So in your estimation, burning women to death, or drowning them, because the might be percieved by one of these fundamentalist shit for brains assholes, of being a witch, should be a First Amendment right also, based on this new ruling by the newly packed court?"


What a load of crap. NONE of that is happening. Tell us....should Christians, Conservatives, Rump supporters and anyone else you don't like be incarcerated, deprogrammed and ostracized socially?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Disagree.
> 
> There’s nothing in Christian doctrine or dogma which compels adherents to meet in large numbers at a specified place or time, where failing to do renders one a ‘bad’ or ‘failed’ Christian.
> 
> No right is absolute, including the rights enshrined in the First Amendment – rights that are subject to reasonable, appropriate regulation by government.
> 
> The California policy is clearly religiously neutral, motivated not by government hostility toward Christianity or religious practice, but by a warranted concern to protect public safety.
> 
> The OP is correct, this represents the start of an activist conservative Court hostile to settled, accepted Establishment Clause jurisprudence whose goal is to further conjoin church and state in violation of the Framers’ original intent.


----------



## JustAGuy1

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't an "alleged burden". It's an actual burden. Argue if you wish it was justified (I disagree) but you can't argue it was an "alleged burden".
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree.
> 
> There’s nothing in Christian doctrine or dogma which compels adherents to meet in large numbers at a specified place or time, where failing to do renders one a ‘bad’ or ‘failed’ Christian.
> 
> No right is absolute, including the rights enshrined in the First Amendment – rights that are subject to reasonable, appropriate regulation by government.
> 
> The California policy is clearly religiously neutral, motivated not by government hostility toward Christianity or religious practice, but by a warranted concern to protect public safety.
> 
> The OP is correct, this represents the start of an activist conservative Court hostile to settled, accepted Establishment Clause jurisprudence whose goal is to further conjoin church and state in violation of the Framers’ original intent.
Click to expand...


A few HIGHLY educated folks don't agree with you. Deal with it.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

skews13 said:


> DukeU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to polish up a bit on your history. Freedom is the fundamental reason America was founded. The courts have no right or authority to undo those freedoms established in our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to Native Americans, African, and Chinese slaves. What a dumbass statement. And right in tune with the entitled asshole mindset. And lets not forget the rights of women. Which according to the good book are subserviants, to the entitled asshole mindset.
> 
> Every state has the duty to protect its citizens above everything else. Rights don't mean anything when you're dead. Or enslaved.
> 
> And what about those "Free" Americans that can become infected with the virus, after coming into contact with one of those entitled assholes, who think their "right" to worship, is above everyone else's "right", to not be infected?  Of forced to have to endure their ignorance, because they exercise their "Freedom" from religion?
> 
> So they don't have the same "Freedoms". Is that what you're insinuating?
> 
> So in your estimation, burning women to death, or drowning them, because the might be percieved by one of these fundamentalist shit for brains assholes, of being a witch, should be a First Amendment right also, based on this new ruling by the newly packed court?
> 
> What other religious atrocities from the old world should we reinstate to accomodate these worhippers "rights"?
Click to expand...






News for ya' slavery ended in the United States over a hundred and fifty years ago.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## JustAGuy1

OldLady said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> With any luck at all, 99.9% of ministers in these critical areas will keep their doors closed and worship on line in order to keep their parishioners safe until the case #'s come down and public health officials give the all clear.  Many outbreaks have been tied to church services all over the country.  I agree with Kagan on this, all the way.  Let's hope it doesn't lead to a slippery slope.
> 
> _Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer, dissented from this order in a blunt opinion highlighting the possibility that her colleagues’ decision will kill people. “Justices of this Court are not scientists,” Kagan began. “Nor do we know much about public health policy. Yet today the Court displaces the judgments of experts about how to respond to a raging pandemic. … That mandate defies our caselaw, exceeds our judicial role, and risks worsening the pandemic.” She pointed out that, contrary to the court’s belief, California has not actually treated churches less favorably than secular businesses and assemblies: Political meetings, lectures, and plays are also banned, she wrote—and these “secular gatherings,” like religious worship, “are constitutionally protected” by the First Amendment. The court simply created “a special exception for worship services.”
> 
> “To state the obvious, judges do not know what scientists and public health experts do,” Kagan explained. “So it is alarming that the Court second-guesses the judgments of expert officials, and displaces their conclusions with its own. In the worst public health crisis in a century, this foray into armchair epidemiology cannot end well.”_
> 
> 
> 
> That is fine and dandy... let the individual church decide but not the government.  when it come to religion the government  should have absolutely no say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the majority, even of evangelicals agree.  It is a small but loud number of evangelicals leading this push to ignore safety protocols.  Ironically, they have forgotten what being a Christian is all about.
> 
> _  “We understand that part of what God is giving to us right now is an invitation to care for our neighbors,” said the Rt. Rev. Thomas James Brown, the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Maine. “One of the ways we can care for our neighbors is to do everything we can to slow and stop the spread of this virus. That means following every possible safety protocol.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most churches are following Maine’s COVID-19 restrictions, even as loud minority fights them
> 
> 
> That small group of evangelical churches has made a loud show of pushing back against the state’s restrictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bangordailynews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
Click to expand...


* Ironically, they have forgotten what being a Christian is all about.     *

Horse hockey.


----------



## Crepitus

DukeU said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> B. Public health orders are not tyranny. Nor will you endlessly repeating that lie change anything.
> 
> 
> 
> So, hide and wait. Just don't expect everyone to cower to these unconstitutional orders.
Click to expand...

Did you not even read the post you quoted?


SassyIrishLass said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore *temporary* public health orders?
> 
> 
> 
> Can we get a definition of "temporary" here? We're going on a year now.  It's arguable that "temporary" is no longer the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The big problem you have is there is no justification for closing churches down when you allow bars and liquor stores to remain open.  Either you close everything down, or you don't.  That's where you idiots fucked up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She'll never grasp it, waaay too far down the demoquack rabbit hole
Click to expand...

Don't be stupider than you have to be, Kid.

BTW, attempting to insult by calling me "she" when you are female is absolutely the epitome of idiocy.



Congratulations.


----------



## JustAGuy1

OldLady said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...


LOL. According to you idiots the ONLY amendment that matters is the 10th. You're an idiot.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

Lysistrata said:


> The freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly apply to all persons regardless of sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, or any other characteristic. Our laws should NEVER, EVER prefer one over another or establish one religion/ideology over another. People who attend mass gatherings endanger the American People in this time of pandemic. If you want to contract the virus and have you and your loved ones die of it, so be it. You earned it. You have a right to be a dirty person. But don't spread it among the rest of us.


If everyone in a group accepts their risk..so be it. This is not the zombie apocalypse..and very few die of Covid-19. 
People who choose not to mask are not, 'dirty' people. Nor have they earned death by disease...--because they choose to gather at worship.. All of this is going to be moot..as the vaccines take hold. Maybe you might think about dialing back the rhetoric..on this issue.


----------



## JustAGuy1

Crepitus said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *14th Amendment*
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You folks are the reason the US has some of the worst Covid rates in the world.  I hope you're proud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not give a single fuck.
> 
> Using "public safety" to suspend unalienable rights is tyranny, PERIOD!!!!
> 
> I am prepared to fight a fucking war over this shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in trump-tard fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty sure my bullets are real.
> 
> Pretty sure your tyranny is also real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A.  Online tough guys are inevitably pussy-bois, so you can cram those bullets up your ass with your sex toys.
> 
> B.  Public health orders are not tyranny. Nor will you endlessly repeating that lie change anything.
Click to expand...


WE aren't going to bow to your stupidity kid. You want to hide go ahead.


----------



## Crepitus

OldLady said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *14th Amendment*
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Temporary health orders are not laws.
> 
> You kids need to stop with this "FREEDUMB" crap.  You are murdering innocent people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no proof that they are "temporary."
> 
> They told us "two weeks."
> 
> They told us a month.
> 
> They keep saying temporary. . .it has turned out to be nothing but lies.
> 
> Cold and flues come and go, as will this thing, over and over again.
> 
> Health orders CANNOT take the place of laws.  They go unchecked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our churches were closed for two months.  They've been open since.  Schools were closed through June but have all been green lighted to reopen since September.
> 
> The restrictions are as temporary as the Germ allows.
Click to expand...

 But... But... But... "FREEDUMB"!!!


----------



## Crepitus

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> The freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly apply to all persons regardless of sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, or any other characteristic. Our laws should NEVER, EVER prefer one over another or establish one religion/ideology over another. People who attend mass gatherings endanger the American People in this time of pandemic. If you want to contract the virus and have you and your loved ones die of it, so be it. You earned it. You have a right to be a dirty person. But don't spread it among the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> If everyone in a group accepts their risk..so be it. This is not the zombie apocalypse..and very few die of Covid-19.
> People who choose not to mask are not, 'dirty' people. Nor have they earned death by disease...--because they choose to gather at worship.. All of this is going to be moot..as the vaccines take hold. Maybe you might think about dialing back the rhetoric..on this issue.
Click to expand...

They're stupid.  When they attend an activity with close contact and no mask they are putting themselves, their friends, and their families at risk.  For NO VIABLE REASON.  It's sheer stupidity.


----------



## airplanemechanic

Crepitus said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *14th Amendment*
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Temporary health orders are not laws.
> 
> You kids need to stop with this "FREEDUMB" crap.  You are murdering innocent people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no proof that they are "temporary."
> 
> They told us "two weeks."
> 
> They told us a month.
> 
> They keep saying temporary. . .it has turned out to be nothing but lies.
> 
> Cold and flues come and go, as will this thing, over and over again.
> 
> Health orders CANNOT take the place of laws.  They go unchecked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our churches were closed for two months.  They've been open since.  Schools were closed through June but have all been green lighted to reopen since September.
> 
> The restrictions are as temporary as the Germ allows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But... But... But... "FREEDUMB"!!!
Click to expand...


Why don't you walk up to veteran and say that you fucking dick sucking liberal?


----------



## BlackSand

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.



It's not Justice Kagan's job to violate the Constitution, no matter how bad she wants to, or for what reasons ...   

.


----------



## meaner gene

progressive hunter said:


> sorry comrade but case law has no place when discussing the constitution,,,


The irony of that statement is that the supreme courts ability to determine constitutionality is based in case law  (Marburry V Madison)


----------



## progressive hunter

meaner gene said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry comrade but case law has no place when discussing the constitution,,,
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of that statement is that the supreme courts ability to determine constitutionality is based in case law  (Marburry V Madison)
Click to expand...

and you call mine ironic,,,

their abilities come from the constitution, and as the constitution says ,, only an amendment can change the constitution,,,


----------



## Crepitus

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The Constitution doesn't require citizens to have any regards for each other.


What exactly to you conservitards think "the general.welfare" is?


----------



## airplanemechanic

meaner gene said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry comrade but case law has no place when discussing the constitution,,,
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of that statement is that the supreme courts ability to determine constitutionality is based in case law  (Marburry V Madison)
Click to expand...


What are you talking about? Do you even know what marburry vs madison was? It established that the SCOTUS could rule a congressional law unconstitutional. How the fuck is that using case law to determine constitutionality?


----------



## progressive hunter

Crepitus said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't require citizens to have any regards for each other.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly to you conservitards think "the general.welfare" is?
Click to expand...

it doesnt mean they can control us,, thats what fascist do,,,


----------



## Crepitus

meaner gene said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry comrade but case law has no place when discussing the constitution,,,
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of that statement is that the supreme courts ability to determine constituti
Click to expand...




Bob Blaylock said:


> Creepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore temporary public health orders?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First Amendment to our Constitution:
> _*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press; *or the right of the people peaceably to assemble*, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._​
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporates the First Amendment (previously held to apply only to the federal government) to all levels of government:
> ​_Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*_​​_Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State._​​_Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability._​​_Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void._​​_Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article._​
> And on top of all that, nearly all of these _“temporary public health orders”_ are not actual, valid laws anyway.  There is not any jurisdiction anywhere in the United states, where any one individual is given the authority to make law by unilateral dictate.  Valid laws must be created through the proper legislative process, or in many states, by putting it on the ballot to a direct vote of the people.
> 
> These _“temporary public health orders”_ have not been enacted by any valid method, so they are not laws, we are under no legal obligation to obey them, and no part of government has any legitimate authority to attempt to enforce them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crapitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> And stop lying about the death rate. You're murdering people with your lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Please, show me where temporary health orders have anything to go with congress making laws.


----------



## meaner gene

airplanemechanic said:


> The freedom of religion clause in the constitution doesn't have an asterisk by it saying "except during a pandemic".
> 
> The court finally got something right.



Actually every "right" within the constitution is not absolute, but subject to "compelling government interest".  

Right to bear arms - not if you're a felon (compelling govt interest)
Can you yell fire in a crowded theatre? - no (compelling govt interest)
Search and Seizure during commission of a crime - (compelling govt interest)
1st amendment disclosing classified information - (compelling govt interest)

No right is absolute.  Such as during a national emergency.


----------



## Crepitus

progressive hunter said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't require citizens to have any regards for each other.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly to you conservitards think "the general.welfare" is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesnt mean they can control us,, thats what fascist do,,,
Click to expand...

You're obviously too stupid to have this conversation.

Bye.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

Crepitus said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *14th Amendment*
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Temporary health orders are not laws.
> 
> You kids need to stop with this "FREEDUMB" crap.  You are murdering innocent people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no proof that they are "temporary."
> 
> They told us "two weeks."
> 
> They told us a month.
> 
> They keep saying temporary. . .it has turned out to be nothing but lies.
> 
> Cold and flues come and go, as will this thing, over and over again.
> 
> Health orders CANNOT take the place of laws.  They go unchecked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our churches were closed for two months.  They've been open since.  Schools were closed through June but have all been green lighted to reopen since September.
> 
> The restrictions are as temporary as the Germ allows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But... But... But... "FREEDUMB"!!!
Click to expand...

Freedom is not all that dumb. The same rights exercised by the civil rights protesters all year are the rights that should cover church gatherings.
I've yet to hear you deplore the gathering of thousands during a BLM protest? Me either, because I think they have that right..absent violence.
Freedom=we decide. Use your freedom wisely--I don't gather, at all. I mask, more to reassure others--even though I've had the Covid..and am in little danger.
But there has to be an end.....soon.

I'm beginning to feel that the left is a bit too free with restrictions, in an emergency that has a clear end in sight. 6 months to herd immunity, most places.


----------



## progressive hunter

Crepitus said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry comrade but case law has no place when discussing the constitution,,,
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of that statement is that the supreme courts ability to determine constituti
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore temporary public health orders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First Amendment to our Constitution:
> _*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press; *or the right of the people peaceably to assemble*, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._​
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporates the First Amendment (previously held to apply only to the federal government) to all levels of government:
> ​_Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*_​​_Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State._​​_Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability._​​_Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void._​​_Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article._​
> And on top of all that, nearly all of these _“temporary public health orders”_ are not actual, valid laws anyway.  There is not any jurisdiction anywhere in the United states, where any one individual is given the authority to make law by unilateral dictate.  Valid laws must be created through the proper legislative process, or in many states, by putting it on the ballot to a direct vote of the people.
> 
> These _“temporary public health orders”_ have not been enacted by any valid method, so they are not laws, we are under no legal obligation to obey them, and no part of government has any legitimate authority to attempt to enforce them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crapitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> And stop lying about the death rate. You're murdering people with your lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, show me where temporary health orders have anything to go with congress making laws.
Click to expand...



check the 1st amendment,,


----------



## progressive hunter

Crepitus said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't require citizens to have any regards for each other.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly to you conservitards think "the general.welfare" is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesnt mean they can control us,, thats what fascist do,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're obviously too stupid to have this conversation.
> 
> Bye.
Click to expand...

so you know I'm right and are running away,,,

TYPICAL,,,


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

Crepitus said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> The freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly apply to all persons regardless of sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, or any other characteristic. Our laws should NEVER, EVER prefer one over another or establish one religion/ideology over another. People who attend mass gatherings endanger the American People in this time of pandemic. If you want to contract the virus and have you and your loved ones die of it, so be it. You earned it. You have a right to be a dirty person. But don't spread it among the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> If everyone in a group accepts their risk..so be it. This is not the zombie apocalypse..and very few die of Covid-19.
> People who choose not to mask are not, 'dirty' people. Nor have they earned death by disease...--because they choose to gather at worship.. All of this is going to be moot..as the vaccines take hold. Maybe you might think about dialing back the rhetoric..on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're stupid.  When they attend an activity with close contact and no mask they are putting themselves, their friends, and their families at risk.  For NO VIABLE REASON.  It's sheer stupidity.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree..but it is their Right..to make that decision. You're not going to cure stupid..why are you trying?


----------



## Crepitus

I'm a


SassyIrishLass said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore temporary public health orders?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First Amendment to our Constitution:
> _*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press; *or the right of the people peaceably to assemble*, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._​
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporates the First Amendment (previously held to apply only to the federal government) to all levels of government:
> ​_Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*_​​_Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State._​​_Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability._​​_Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void._​​_Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article._​
> 
> 
> 
> Crapitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> And stop lying about the death rate. You're murdering people with your lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These fools don't, can't, or refuse to understand the Constitution
Click to expand...

I'm across it's not me failing to understand the constitution.

Sorry for your luck.

Congratulations on your aware.


----------



## Crepitus

progressive hunter said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't require citizens to have any regards for each other.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly to you conservitards think "the general.welfare" is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesnt mean they can control us,, thats what fascist do,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're obviously too stupid to have this conversation.
> 
> Bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you know I'm right and are running away,,,
> 
> TYPICAL,,,
Click to expand...

Wrong.  I'm just sick to trying to educate morons.

Have a nice day.


----------



## meaner gene

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> If everyone in a group accepts their risk..so be it. This is not the zombie apocalypse..and very few die of Covid-19.
> People who choose not to mask are not, 'dirty' people. Nor have they earned death by disease...--because they choose to gather at worship.. All of this is going to be moot..as the vaccines take hold. Maybe you might think about dialing back the rhetoric..on this issue.


That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking.  They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.


----------



## progressive hunter

Crepitus said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't require citizens to have any regards for each other.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly to you conservitards think "the general.welfare" is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesnt mean they can control us,, thats what fascist do,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're obviously too stupid to have this conversation.
> 
> Bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you know I'm right and are running away,,,
> 
> TYPICAL,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  I'm just sick to trying to educate morons.
> 
> Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

dont you mean "equally educated"???

cause youre failing with me so far due to your minimal education,,,


----------



## meaner gene

Crepitus said:


> They're stupid.  When they attend an activity with close contact and no mask they are putting themselves, their friends, and their families at risk.  For NO VIABLE REASON.  It's sheer stupidity.


And not just those people, but everybody that those people come into contact with.


----------



## Crepitus

Bob Blaylock said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.
> 
> 
> 
> So, 100 years is considered "temporary" under that definition.  As long as it is not "permanent" right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where, in the Constitution, is it suggested that government has the authority to enact _“laws”_ outside of the defined valid processes for doing so, or to violate the rights of the people that the Bill of Rights explicitly affirms, so long as these are only in effect _“temporarily”_?
Click to expand...

The 10th Amendment, which gives states all powers not specifically given to the federal government, allows them the authority to take public health emergency actions, such as setting quarantines and business restrictions.


----------



## j-mac

Crepitus said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore temporary public health orders?
> 
> And stop lying about the death rate.  You're murdering people with your lies.
Click to expand...


Your rhetoric is murdering brain cells


----------



## Crepitus

progressive hunter said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't require citizens to have any regards for each other.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly to you conservitards think "the general.welfare" is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesnt mean they can control us,, thats what fascist do,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're obviously too stupid to have this conversation.
> 
> Bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you know I'm right and are running away,,,
> 
> TYPICAL,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  I'm just sick to trying to educate morons.
> 
> Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dont you mean "equally educated"???
> 
> cause youre failing with me so far due to your minimal education,,,
Click to expand...

I have no idea what your level of education might be, but I've long realized that educated doesn't have to equal smart.


----------



## progressive hunter

Crepitus said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.
> 
> 
> 
> So, 100 years is considered "temporary" under that definition.  As long as it is not "permanent" right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where, in the Constitution, is it suggested that government has the authority to enact _“laws”_ outside of the defined valid processes for doing so, or to violate the rights of the people that the Bill of Rights explicitly affirms, so long as these are only in effect _“temporarily”_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 10th Amendment, which gives states all powers not specifically given to the federal government, allows them the authority to take public health emergency actions, such as setting quarantines and business restrictions.
Click to expand...



as long as they dont violate the constitution,,


----------



## Crepitus

j-mac said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore temporary public health orders?
> 
> And stop lying about the death rate.  You're murdering people with your lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your rhetoric is murdering brain cells
Click to expand...

 No, that your drug habit.


----------



## progressive hunter

Crepitus said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't require citizens to have any regards for each other.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly to you conservitards think "the general.welfare" is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesnt mean they can control us,, thats what fascist do,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're obviously too stupid to have this conversation.
> 
> Bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you know I'm right and are running away,,,
> 
> TYPICAL,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  I'm just sick to trying to educate morons.
> 
> Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dont you mean "equally educated"???
> 
> cause youre failing with me so far due to your minimal education,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea what your level of education might be, but I've long realized that educated doesn't have to equal smart.
Click to expand...

I know the 10th A doesnt allow them to violate the constitution,,, you not so much,,


----------



## Crepitus

progressive hunter said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.
> 
> 
> 
> So, 100 years is considered "temporary" under that definition.  As long as it is not "permanent" right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where, in the Constitution, is it suggested that government has the authority to enact _“laws”_ outside of the defined valid processes for doing so, or to violate the rights of the people that the Bill of Rights explicitly affirms, so long as these are only in effect _“temporarily”_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 10th Amendment, which gives states all powers not specifically given to the federal government, allows them the authority to take public health emergency actions, such as setting quarantines and business restrictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> as long as they dont violate the constitution,,
Click to expand...

They don't.


----------



## Crepitus

progressive hunter said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't require citizens to have any regards for each other.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly to you conservitards think "the general.welfare" is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesnt mean they can control us,, thats what fascist do,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're obviously too stupid to have this conversation.
> 
> Bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you know I'm right and are running away,,,
> 
> TYPICAL,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  I'm just sick to trying to educate morons.
> 
> Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dont you mean "equally educated"???
> 
> cause youre failing with me so far due to your minimal education,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea what your level of education might be, but I've long realized that educated doesn't have to equal smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know the 10th A doesnt allow them to violate the constitution,,, you not so much,,
Click to expand...

Who's violating the constitution?


----------



## meaner gene

progressive hunter said:


> sorry comrade but case law has no place when discussing the constitution,,,





meaner gene said:


> The irony of that statement is that the supreme courts ability to determine constitutionality is based in case law  (Marburry V Madison)





progressive hunter said:


> and you call mine ironic,,,
> 
> their abilities come from the constitution, and as the constitution says ,, only an amendment can change the constitution,,,


The Constitution doesn't specify who can determine a laws constitutionality.  That should have been left to the people that wrote it?  Right?
Not article 3 judges without that enumerated power.


----------



## progressive hunter

Crepitus said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.
> 
> 
> 
> So, 100 years is considered "temporary" under that definition.  As long as it is not "permanent" right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where, in the Constitution, is it suggested that government has the authority to enact _“laws”_ outside of the defined valid processes for doing so, or to violate the rights of the people that the Bill of Rights explicitly affirms, so long as these are only in effect _“temporarily”_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 10th Amendment, which gives states all powers not specifically given to the federal government, allows them the authority to take public health emergency actions, such as setting quarantines and business restrictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> as long as they dont violate the constitution,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't.
Click to expand...

you dont quarantine people that arent sick,, thats called prison,,,


----------



## BlackSand

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Freedom in not all that dumb. The same rights exercised by the civil rights protesters all year are the rights that should cover church gatherings.
> I've yet to hear you deplore the gathering of thousands during a BLM protest? Me either, because I think they have that right..absent violence.
> Freedom=we decide. Use your freedom wisely--I don't gather, at all. I mask, more to reassure others--even though I've had the Covid..and am in little danger.
> But there has to be an end.....soon.
> 
> I'm beginning to feel that the left is a bit too free with restrictions, in an emergency that has a clear end in sight. 6 months to herd immunity, most places.



Well Said ...

Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution:
_"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, *or to the people*."_

When The Government hasn't been granted the power to violate the Constitution ... Whether it be the Federal, State or Local Governments ...
The ability to govern one's activities falls directly on the last entity listed in the Tenth Amendment.

The People are allowed to govern themselves and their own activity.
Provide them with the information you may find pertinent, and they will make their own choices in the matter.

.


----------



## progressive hunter

Crepitus said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't require citizens to have any regards for each other.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly to you conservitards think "the general.welfare" is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesnt mean they can control us,, thats what fascist do,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're obviously too stupid to have this conversation.
> 
> Bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you know I'm right and are running away,,,
> 
> TYPICAL,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  I'm just sick to trying to educate morons.
> 
> Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dont you mean "equally educated"???
> 
> cause youre failing with me so far due to your minimal education,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea what your level of education might be, but I've long realized that educated doesn't have to equal smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know the 10th A doesnt allow them to violate the constitution,,, you not so much,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's violating the constitution?
Click to expand...

in this case newsom for closing churchs,,,


----------



## meaner gene

airplanemechanic said:


> What are you talking about? Do you even know what marburry vs madison was? It established that the SCOTUS could rule a congressional law unconstitutional. How the fuck is that using case law to determine constitutionality?


Because congress has the  power to amend (write) the constitution, they should have the power to determine what it means, not the courts.
Right?
But the courts through case law usurped that power.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

meaner gene said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If everyone in a group accepts their risk..so be it. This is not the zombie apocalypse..and very few die of Covid-19.
> People who choose not to mask are not, 'dirty' people. Nor have they earned death by disease...--because they choose to gather at worship.. All of this is going to be moot..as the vaccines take hold. Maybe you might think about dialing back the rhetoric..on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking.  They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.
Click to expand...

If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!

They do not have the right to inflict their smoke on the unwilling..just as people don't have the right to refuse to mask..around people who wish them to and in a business that requires it.  Personal responsibility...it's a thing.


----------



## progressive hunter

meaner gene said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? Do you even know what marburry vs madison was? It established that the SCOTUS could rule a congressional law unconstitutional. How the fuck is that using case law to determine constitutionality?
> 
> 
> 
> Because congress has the  power to amend (write) the constitution, they should have the power to determine what it means, not the courts.
> Right?
> But the courts through case law usurped that power.
Click to expand...

congress doesnt have the power to amend the constitution,,, 

at this point you should just give it up,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If everyone in a group accepts their risk..so be it. This is not the zombie apocalypse..and very few die of Covid-19.
> People who choose not to mask are not, 'dirty' people. Nor have they earned death by disease...--because they choose to gather at worship.. All of this is going to be moot..as the vaccines take hold. Maybe you might think about dialing back the rhetoric..on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking.  They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!
> 
> They do not have the right to inflict their smoke on the unwilling..just as people don't have the right to refuse to mask..around people who wish them to and in a business that requires it.  Personal responsibility...it's a thing.
Click to expand...

then you should leave if you dont like the smoke,,,


----------



## JustAGuy1

Crepitus said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.
> 
> 
> 
> So, 100 years is considered "temporary" under that definition.  As long as it is not "permanent" right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where, in the Constitution, is it suggested that government has the authority to enact _“laws”_ outside of the defined valid processes for doing so, or to violate the rights of the people that the Bill of Rights explicitly affirms, so long as these are only in effect _“temporarily”_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 10th Amendment, which gives states all powers not specifically given to the federal government, allows them the authority to take public health emergency actions, such as setting quarantines and business restrictions.
Click to expand...


So the 10th amendment is the supreme amendment and carries with it the power to abrogate all the other amendments.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Crepitus said:


> The 10th Amendment, which gives states all powers not specifically given to the federal government, allows them the authority to take public health emergency actions, such as setting quarantines and business restrictions.



_The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, *nor prohibited by it to the States*, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people._​
  The First Amendment, as incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits states as well as the federal government from violating the people's freedoms of religion, speech, and assembly.

  There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that allows any part of government to make up a fake crisis, and to use that fake crisis as an excuse to violate any part of the Constitution


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

progressive hunter said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If everyone in a group accepts their risk..so be it. This is not the zombie apocalypse..and very few die of Covid-19.
> People who choose not to mask are not, 'dirty' people. Nor have they earned death by disease...--because they choose to gather at worship.. All of this is going to be moot..as the vaccines take hold. Maybe you might think about dialing back the rhetoric..on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking.  They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!
> 
> They do not have the right to inflict their smoke on the unwilling..just as people don't have the right to refuse to mask..around people who wish them to and in a business that requires it.  Personal responsibility...it's a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then you should leave if you dont like the smoke,,,
Click to expand...

Nope...if you are breaking the law...well..you either put it out or leave. 

Of course..if you are not offending anyone..in whatever space you're in...puff tuff.


----------



## progressive hunter

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If everyone in a group accepts their risk..so be it. This is not the zombie apocalypse..and very few die of Covid-19.
> People who choose not to mask are not, 'dirty' people. Nor have they earned death by disease...--because they choose to gather at worship.. All of this is going to be moot..as the vaccines take hold. Maybe you might think about dialing back the rhetoric..on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking.  They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!
> 
> They do not have the right to inflict their smoke on the unwilling..just as people don't have the right to refuse to mask..around people who wish them to and in a business that requires it.  Personal responsibility...it's a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then you should leave if you dont like the smoke,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope...if you are breaking the law...well..you either put it out or leave.
> 
> Of course..if you are not offending anyone..in whatever space you're in...puff tuff.
Click to expand...



so your solution to something you dont like is to force other people to do what you want them to,,,

I think thats a form of fascism,,,


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Crepitus said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> as long as they dont violate the constitution,,
> 
> 
> 
> They don't.
Click to expand...





Crepitus said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know the 10th A doesnt allow them to violate the constitution,,, you not so much,,
> 
> 
> 
> Who's violating the constitution?
Click to expand...


_Congress _[and by incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment, all parts of all levels of government]_ shall make no law respecting an establishment of *religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press; *or the right of the people peaceably to assemble*, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._​


----------



## Crepitus

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> I've yet to hear you deplore the gathering of thousands during a BLM protest?


Out doors, 6 feet and more apart, and masked.  And I certainly did say how foolish it was for them to be doing it right then .


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

progressive hunter said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If everyone in a group accepts their risk..so be it. This is not the zombie apocalypse..and very few die of Covid-19.
> People who choose not to mask are not, 'dirty' people. Nor have they earned death by disease...--because they choose to gather at worship.. All of this is going to be moot..as the vaccines take hold. Maybe you might think about dialing back the rhetoric..on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking.  They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!
> 
> They do not have the right to inflict their smoke on the unwilling..just as people don't have the right to refuse to mask..around people who wish them to and in a business that requires it.  Personal responsibility...it's a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then you should leave if you dont like the smoke,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope...if you are breaking the law...well..you either put it out or leave.
> 
> Of course..if you are not offending anyone..in whatever space you're in...puff tuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so your solution to something you dont like is to force other people to do what you want them to,,,
> 
> I think thats a form of fascism,,,
Click to expand...

Huh?? Not sure how you got that out of what i wrote..but no.

My..solution, as you term it--is civility and natural courtesy. I think that if a church wants to worship and accepts the risks..let them do it. I think it's dumb..but it's their choice.
Just like the BLM protesters.

As for smoking..I was defending the right of smokers to smoke..and smoke around those who had no issue with breathing their smoke.

If you are suggesting that a smoker has a right to smoke wherever they wish...you are wrong...you have no right to have your habit somehow take precedence over their health and wishes. The law agrees, BTW.


----------



## meaner gene

meaner gene said:


> That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking.  They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.





EvilEyeFleegle said:


> If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!
> 
> They do not have the right to inflict their smoke on the unwilling..just as people don't have the right to refuse to mask..around people who wish them to and in a business that requires it.  Personal responsibility...it's a thing.



Except some states have overturned their mask requirements. So those people are free to go without masks among the general population.


----------



## Crepitus

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> The freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly apply to all persons regardless of sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, or any other characteristic. Our laws should NEVER, EVER prefer one over another or establish one religion/ideology over another. People who attend mass gatherings endanger the American People in this time of pandemic. If you want to contract the virus and have you and your loved ones die of it, so be it. You earned it. You have a right to be a dirty person. But don't spread it among the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> If everyone in a group accepts their risk..so be it. This is not the zombie apocalypse..and very few die of Covid-19.
> People who choose not to mask are not, 'dirty' people. Nor have they earned death by disease...--because they choose to gather at worship.. All of this is going to be moot..as the vaccines take hold. Maybe you might think about dialing back the rhetoric..on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're stupid.  When they attend an activity with close contact and no mask they are putting themselves, their friends, and their families at risk.  For NO VIABLE REASON.  It's sheer stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I tend to agree..but it is their Right..to make that decision. You're not going to cure stupid..why are you trying?
Click to expand...

They have every right to endanger themselves.  They have no right to endanger their friends and families.


----------



## BlackSand

progressive hunter said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...if you are breaking the law...well..you either put it out or leave.
> 
> Of course..if you are not offending anyone..in whatever space you're in...puff tuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so your solution to something you dont like is to force other people to do what you want them to,,,
> 
> I think thats a form of fascism,,,
Click to expand...


The law is not necessarily a matter of what one person or another desires.

If you disagree with the Constitutionality of the law, challenge it in court.
If you are concerned with the intent of the people passing the laws. challenge them in their districts.

If you are dissatisfied with the results you find achievable through either action, understand that you have failed to provide for a better outcome.

.


----------



## progressive hunter

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If everyone in a group accepts their risk..so be it. This is not the zombie apocalypse..and very few die of Covid-19.
> People who choose not to mask are not, 'dirty' people. Nor have they earned death by disease...--because they choose to gather at worship.. All of this is going to be moot..as the vaccines take hold. Maybe you might think about dialing back the rhetoric..on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking.  They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!
> 
> They do not have the right to inflict their smoke on the unwilling..just as people don't have the right to refuse to mask..around people who wish them to and in a business that requires it.  Personal responsibility...it's a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then you should leave if you dont like the smoke,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope...if you are breaking the law...well..you either put it out or leave.
> 
> Of course..if you are not offending anyone..in whatever space you're in...puff tuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so your solution to something you dont like is to force other people to do what you want them to,,,
> 
> I think thats a form of fascism,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh?? Not sure how you got that out of what i wrote..but no.
> 
> My..solution, as you term it--is civility and natural courtesy. I think that if a church wants to worship and accepts the risks..let them do it. I think it's dumb..but it's their choice.
> Just like the BLM protesters.
> 
> As for smoking..I was defending the right of smokers to smoke..and smoke around those who had no issue with breathing their smoke.
> 
> If you are suggesting that a smoker has a right to smoke wherever they wish...you are wrong...you have no right to have your habit somehow take precedence over their health and wishes. The law agrees, BTW.
Click to expand...



what I said was people should be able to decide and if you dont like it you can leave,,,

you choose to point the government gun at them to comply with your desires,,,


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

Crepitus said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to hear you deplore the gathering of thousands during a BLM protest?
> 
> 
> 
> Out doors, 6 feet and more apart, and masked.  And I certainly did say how foolish it was for them to be doing it right then .
Click to expand...

Sometimes they were..and sometimes they weren't--I suspect your rhetoric was a bit different, eh?


----------



## meaner gene

progressive hunter said:


> congress doesnt have the power to amend the constitution,,,
> 
> at this point you should just give it up,,,



*Article V*
_The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution...

...Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, _


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.


Is the widdle baby angry at the great big judges?
Maybe the widdle angry baby can show the decades of case law on covid restrictions and freedom of religion? 

I'll bet the widdle baby cannot.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

meaner gene said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking.  They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!
> 
> They do not have the right to inflict their smoke on the unwilling..just as people don't have the right to refuse to mask..around people who wish them to and in a business that requires it.  Personal responsibility...it's a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except some states have overturned their mask requirements. So those people are free to go without masks among the general population.
Click to expand...

OK..and so it goes...until it becomes a non-issue. I'd point out that if they are swanning about Southern CA without masking..they either have already had the covid..or are about to.


----------



## progressive hunter

meaner gene said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> congress doesnt have the power to amend the constitution,,,
> 
> at this point you should just give it up,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Article V*
> _The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution...
> 
> ...Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, _
Click to expand...

you do realize you just proved me right dont you???

you should have taken my advice,,,


----------



## Crepitus

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to hear you deplore the gathering of thousands during a BLM protest?
> 
> 
> 
> Out doors, 6 feet and more apart, and masked.  And I certainly did say how foolish it was for them to be doing it right then .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes they were..and sometimes they weren't--I suspect your rhetoric was a bit different, eh?
Click to expand...

If you're saying I didn't say they were downright stupid and criminal you'd be correct.  They were doing something they felt was necessary to the greater good of their people.  That can be worth a certain amount of sacrifice whether I agree with it or not.

These fools bitching about missing a church service are not in the same category.


----------



## meaner gene

Bob Blaylock said:


> The First Amendment, as incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits states as well as the federal government from violating the people's freedoms of religion, speech, and assembly.


Yet you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre.
You can't advocate the violent overthrow of the government
And you can't disclose classified information.

How come they can control speech?


----------



## JustAGuy1

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Is the widdle baby angry at the great big judges?
> Maybe the widdle angry baby can show the decades of case law on covid restrictions and freedom of religion?
> 
> I'll bet the widdle baby cannot.
Click to expand...


He is perpetually angry at anything that does not go as he thinks it should. He hates ALL things Christian and Conservative. He'd lock us up if he could.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

Crepitus said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to hear you deplore the gathering of thousands during a BLM protest?
> 
> 
> 
> Out doors, 6 feet and more apart, and masked.  And I certainly did say how foolish it was for them to be doing it right then .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes they were..and sometimes they weren't--I suspect your rhetoric was a bit different, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're saying I didn't say they were downright stupid and criminal you'd be correct.  They were doing something they felt was necessary to the greater good of their people.  That can be worth a certain amount of sacrifice whether I agree with it or not.
> 
> These fools bitching about missing a church service are not in the same category.
Click to expand...

There you miss the point....from their point of view it is the same..you may not share their faith in God...but it's real to them..as real as their ideologies are to BLM. That you cannot see this and respect it is a mystery to me.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Crepitus said:


> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
Click to expand...

LOL.

Take your meds, Biden Loon


----------



## JustAGuy1

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to hear you deplore the gathering of thousands during a BLM protest?
> 
> 
> 
> Out doors, 6 feet and more apart, and masked.  And I certainly did say how foolish it was for them to be doing it right then .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes they were..and sometimes they weren't--I suspect your rhetoric was a bit different, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're saying I didn't say they were downright stupid and criminal you'd be correct.  They were doing something they felt was necessary to the greater good of their people.  That can be worth a certain amount of sacrifice whether I agree with it or not.
> 
> These fools bitching about missing a church service are not in the same category.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you miss the point....from their point of view it is the same..you may not share their faith in God...but it's real to them..as real as their ideologies are to BLM. That you cannot see this and respect it is a mystery to me.
Click to expand...


Kudos on your even handed approach.


----------



## meaner gene

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> OK..and so it goes...until it becomes a non-issue. I'd point out that if they are swanning about Southern CA without masking..they either have already had the covid..or are about to.


Well, I would propose a live by, die by the sword rule.  That those people exercising their religious freedom, sign a hospitalization waiver.   That if a hospital becomes overwhelmed with patients, they would be the first to be refused admission, or discharged to make room.


----------



## BlackSand

meaner gene said:


> Yet you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre.
> You can't advocate the violent overthrow of the government
> And you can't disclose classified information.
> 
> How come they can control speech?



There is no Federal Statute that forbids yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Any performer can most certainly yell fire in a crowded theater.

Anyone attending a crowded theater has accepted and entered into a contract with the theater owner at the point in which they purchase a ticket.
A theater owner can eject anyone they deem to be disruptive to the performance as part of that contract.

.


----------



## JustAGuy1

meaner gene said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK..and so it goes...until it becomes a non-issue. I'd point out that if they are swanning about Southern CA without masking..they either have already had the covid..or are about to.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I would propose a live by, die by the sword rule.  That those people exercising their religious freedom, sign a hospitalization waiver.   That if a hospital becomes overwhelmed with patients, they would be the first to be refused admission, or discharged to make room.
Click to expand...


Pretty slippery slope there son. Where does that stop?


----------



## BlackSand

meaner gene said:


> Well, I would propose a live by, die by the sword rule.  That those people exercising their religious freedom, sign a hospitalization waiver.   That if a hospital becomes overwhelmed with patients, they would be the first to be refused admission, or discharged to make room.



If they cannot refuse service to illegal immigrants, they have no argument as far as the desire to try and refuse service to American Citizens ...   

.


----------



## BlackSand

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> There you miss the point....from their point of view it is the same..you may not share their faith in God...but it's real to them..as real as their ideologies are to BLM. That you cannot see this and respect it is a mystery to me.



What have you done with EvilEyeFleegle ... 
Nah ... kudos and well put.

.


----------



## meaner gene

meaner gene said:


> Well, I would propose a live by, die by the sword rule.  That those people exercising their religious freedom, sign a hospitalization waiver.   That if a hospital becomes overwhelmed with patients, they would be the first to be refused admission, or discharged to make room.





JustAGuy1 said:


> Pretty slippery slope there son. Where does that stop?


Indeed.  If you buy a double cheeseburger, you can't get a double heart bypass.   Yup.  That slope is covered in ice.  But wouldn't it be good if people took total responsibility for their actions?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

JustAGuy1 said:


> He is perpetually angry at anything that does not go as he thinks it should. He hates ALL things Christian and Conservative. He'd lock us up if he could.


I'd call him an a-hole but at least they have a useful purpose.


----------



## skews13

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking.  They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!
> 
> They do not have the right to inflict their smoke on the unwilling..just as people don't have the right to refuse to mask..around people who wish them to and in a business that requires it.  Personal responsibility...it's a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except some states have overturned their mask requirements. So those people are free to go without masks among the general population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK..and so it goes...until it becomes a non-issue. I'd point out that if they are swanning about Southern CA without masking..they either have already had the covid..or are about to.
Click to expand...



I’m still not sure why conservatives have such a hard time understanding infectious disease transmission. Exposing yourself unnecessarily to COVID-19 and then gathering in fellowship without the proper safeguards doesn’t sound terribly Christian to me.

It isn’t, of course. But then when have these folks ever _really_ been “pro-life”?


----------



## JustAGuy1

skews13 said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking.  They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!
> 
> They do not have the right to inflict their smoke on the unwilling..just as people don't have the right to refuse to mask..around people who wish them to and in a business that requires it.  Personal responsibility...it's a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except some states have overturned their mask requirements. So those people are free to go without masks among the general population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK..and so it goes...until it becomes a non-issue. I'd point out that if they are swanning about Southern CA without masking..they either have already had the covid..or are about to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I’m still not sure why conservatives have such a hard time understanding infectious disease transmission. Exposing yourself unnecessarily to COVID-19 and then gathering in fellowship without the proper safeguards doesn’t sound terribly Christian to me.
> 
> It isn’t, of course. But then when have these folks ever _really_ been “pro-life”?
Click to expand...


You have no idea what it means to be a "Christian". You've been listening to Tristan for too long.


----------



## Lysistrata

People who choose to attend these super-spreader events with not even a mask or public distancing are dirty people who disrespect their communities and their nation. It doesn't matter that the gathering is "religious" or not.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

meaner gene said:


> Well, I would propose a live by, die by the sword rule. That those people exercising their religious freedom, sign a hospitalization waiver. That if a hospital becomes overwhelmed with patients, they would be the first to be refused admission, or discharged to make room.


If church goers follow all the rules that supposedly abate the covid virus...social distancing, mask wearing, etc.,
then by what right would church goers be denied the same services anyone else is entitled to?

People still attend church services and there are zero reports of hospital being overwhelmed by church goers.

I'm afraid this whole hoo-haw over this all is just a way for anti religion bigots to try and strike a blow against
church goers. It's bigotry pure and simple. 
And ask yourself how many Mosques are being shut down due to covid?


----------



## Lysistrata

skews13 said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> That opinion of personal responsibility sounds good, until you consider it's like smoking.  They have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to fill the air with their second hand smoke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they are with a crowd of like-minded individuals who don't mind smoke....they do indeed have that very right!
> 
> They do not have the right to inflict their smoke on the unwilling..just as people don't have the right to refuse to mask..around people who wish them to and in a business that requires it.  Personal responsibility...it's a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except some states have overturned their mask requirements. So those people are free to go without masks among the general population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK..and so it goes...until it becomes a non-issue. I'd point out that if they are swanning about Southern CA without masking..they either have already had the covid..or are about to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I’m still not sure why conservatives have such a hard time understanding infectious disease transmission. Exposing yourself unnecessarily to COVID-19 and then gathering in fellowship without the proper safeguards doesn’t sound terribly Christian to me.
> 
> It isn’t, of course. But then when have these folks ever _really_ been “pro-life”?
Click to expand...


The people who pretend to be "pro-life" have never been. Most of the people who call themselves "Christian" today are not followers of the Jesus who made his teachings known in the Sermon on the Mount. They are phonies.


----------



## JustAGuy1

Lysistrata said:


> People who choose to attend these super-spreader events with not even a mask or public distancing are dirty people who disrespect their communities and their nation. It doesn't matter that the gathering is "religious" or not.



Oh stuff it. You people are abject cowards. Don't go out, just hide. The rest of us aren't afraid.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lysistrata said:


> The people who pretend to be "pro-life" have never been. Most of the people who call themselves "Christian" today are not followers of the Jesus who made his teachings known in the Sermon on the Mount. They are phonies.



They are more Christians than those who claim they are and vote for a President that now wants to fund overseas abortions.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

skews13 said:


> I’m still not sure why conservatives have such a hard time understanding infectious disease transmission. Exposing yourself unnecessarily to COVID-19 and then gathering in fellowship without the proper safeguards doesn’t sound terribly Christian to me.
> 
> It isn’t, of course. But then when have these folks ever _really_ been “pro-life”?


When they oppose the killing of babies.

I notice all the anti religion bigots all assume that being in church automatically means a total lack of 
covid virus protocol. 

Why is that?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Lysistrata said:


> The people who pretend to be "pro-life" have never been. Most of the people who call themselves "Christian" today are not followers of the Jesus who made his teachings known in the Sermon on the Mount. They are phonies.


Preach your gospel, buddy! Especially the part about judging others and being hypocrites.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

meaner gene said:


> Indeed. If you buy a double cheeseburger, you can't get a double heart bypass. Yup. That slope is covered in ice. But wouldn't it be good if people took total responsibility for their actions?



When in hell did Democrats start believing in taking responsibility for their actions?  Much of their constituency doesn't.


----------



## Lysistrata

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> And ask yourself how many Mosques are being shut down due to covid?


This would depend on how many mosques are violating Covid-19 orders. What are your numbers? My observant Muslim friend does his Friday prayers at home via the internet.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

BlackSand said:


> If they cannot refuse service to illegal immigrants, they have no argument as far as the desire to try and refuse service to American Citizens ...



     

Boy I wish USMB would bring back that "winner" icon.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Lysistrata said:


> This would depend on how many mosques are violating Covid-19 orders. What are your numbers? My observant Muslim friend does his Friday prayers at home via the internet.


I have no numbers. I just want to know if only Christians and Jews are being attacked for attending
their places of worship.


----------



## pknopp

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't an "alleged burden". It's an actual burden. Argue if you wish it was justified (I disagree) but you can't argue it was an "alleged burden".
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree.
> 
> There’s nothing in Christian doctrine or dogma which compels adherents to meet in large numbers at a specified place or time, where failing to do renders one a ‘bad’ or ‘failed’ Christian.
Click to expand...

 
_ 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

_ What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. _

 1 Corinthians 14:26



> No right is absolute, including the rights enshrined in the First Amendment – rights that are subject to reasonable, appropriate regulation by government.
> 
> The California policy is clearly religiously neutral, motivated not by government hostility toward Christianity or religious practice, but by a warranted concern to protect public safety.
> 
> The OP is correct, this represents the start of an activist conservative Court hostile to settled, accepted Establishment Clause jurisprudence whose goal is to further conjoin church and state in violation of the Framers’ original intent.



 Argue that, but you can not argue it is not a burden. The courts did NOT upend settled anything either. Please provide these previous rulings.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Crepitus said:


> What exactly to you conservitards think "the general.welfare" is?



As James Madison once said, only those enumerated.


----------



## Lysistrata

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> This would depend on how many mosques are violating Covid-19 orders. What are your numbers? My observant Muslim friend does his Friday prayers at home via the internet.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no numbers. I just want to know if only Christians and Jews are being attacked for attending
> their places of worship.
Click to expand...


Nobody is "being attacked." It is not a matter of religion. We all know what the rules are. The trash of all the religions are not following them. I like what the Israeli government did some months ago. A city of predominantly orthodox Jews did not follow the rules. The Israeli government just shut the city down; nobody goes in, nobody goes out. I don't see why people of some religious groups should be allowed to endanger entire communities. Being of a certain religion is not a get-out-of-jail-free, I-can-do-what-ever-I-please card.


----------



## Crepitus

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to hear you deplore the gathering of thousands during a BLM protest?
> 
> 
> 
> Out doors, 6 feet and more apart, and masked.  And I certainly did say how foolish it was for them to be doing it right then .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes they were..and sometimes they weren't--I suspect your rhetoric was a bit different, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're saying I didn't say they were downright stupid and criminal you'd be correct.  They were doing something they felt was necessary to the greater good of their people.  That can be worth a certain amount of sacrifice whether I agree with it or not.
> 
> These fools bitching about missing a church service are not in the same category.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you miss the point....from their point of view it is the same..you may not share their faith in God...but it's real to them..as real as their ideologies are to BLM. That you cannot see this and respect it is a mystery to me.
Click to expand...

Um...  Nobody is persecuting them for believing in their god.  Nobody is saying they can't worship their god.  They are well past the point where they need to fight for their rights to believe as they wish.

I'm sorry, but your pushing a false equivalency.


----------



## Crepitus

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly to you conservitards think "the general.welfare" is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As James Madison once said, only those enumerated.
Click to expand...

The general welfare is right there in the constitution.  Sorry for your luck.


----------



## skews13

Crepitus said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly to you conservitards think "the general.welfare" is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As James Madison once said, only those enumerated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general welfare is right there in the constitution.  Sorry for your luck.
Click to expand...


It's in the very first sentence before you even open the document





Conservatives are so fucking stupid, that it actually hurts. They understand everything about the Constitution, except the actual meaning, and purpose of the Constitution.

Which doesn't have a god damn thing to do with god or guns.


----------



## Dragonlady

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.



The only reason these religious nuts are pushing for live, inperson services is for these "independent" ministers to get the cash out of the collection plates.  They're willing to kill their parishoners for the cash.


----------



## BluesLegend

toobfreak said:


> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Activist Court Rewrites Law*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you mean MAJORITY OPINION?  6-3 isn't activist but the majority, the popular vote.  Now watch this fool take the ACTIVIST action  of wanting to STACK THE COURT with 11 or 13 people until they get the vote THEY want, in an effort to counter "activism."
Click to expand...


The way I see it the SCOTUS is fighting Dems, the enemy of the people. Good job SCOTUS


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.


It is law respecting religion. So what? Is it written somewhere that we can't make laws respecting religion? Geesh, talk about just making up a reason to get upset.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Dragonlady said:


> They're willing to kill their parishoners for the cash.


----------



## pknopp

meaner gene said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The freedom of religion clause in the constitution doesn't have an asterisk by it saying "except during a pandemic".
> 
> The court finally got something right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually every "right" within the constitution is not absolute, but subject to "compelling government interest".
> 
> Right to bear arms - not if you're a felon (compelling govt interest)
> Can you yell fire in a crowded theatre? - no (compelling govt interest)
> Search and Seizure during commission of a crime - (compelling govt interest)
> 1st amendment disclosing classified information - (compelling govt interest)
> 
> No right is absolute.  Such as during a national emergency.
Click to expand...


 You most certainly can yell fire in a crowded theater.

https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...g-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/


----------



## DukeU

Lysistrata said:


> Nobody is "being attacked." It is not a matter of religion. We all know what the rules are. *The trash of all the religions are not following them*. I like what the Israeli government did some months ago. A city of predominantly orthodox Jews did not follow the rules. The Israeli government just shut the city down; nobody goes in, nobody goes out. I don't see why people of some religious groups should be allowed to endanger entire communities. Being of a certain religion is not a get-out-of-jail-free, I-can-do-what-ever-I-please card.



You're a bigot.


----------



## Crepitus

Soon they will tell us the preamble isn't really part of the Constitution.


----------



## Crepitus

pknopp said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The freedom of religion clause in the constitution doesn't have an asterisk by it saying "except during a pandemic".
> 
> The court finally got something right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually every "right" within the constitution is not absolute, but subject to "compelling government interest".
> 
> Right to bear arms - not if you're a felon (compelling govt interest)
> Can you yell fire in a crowded theatre? - no (compelling govt interest)
> Search and Seizure during commission of a crime - (compelling govt interest)
> 1st amendment disclosing classified information - (compelling govt interest)
> 
> No right is absolute.  Such as during a national emergency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You most certainly can yell fire in a crowded theater.
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...g-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
Click to expand...

You can, but you will.face consequences.


----------



## pknopp

Crepitus said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The freedom of religion clause in the constitution doesn't have an asterisk by it saying "except during a pandemic".
> 
> The court finally got something right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually every "right" within the constitution is not absolute, but subject to "compelling government interest".
> 
> Right to bear arms - not if you're a felon (compelling govt interest)
> Can you yell fire in a crowded theatre? - no (compelling govt interest)
> Search and Seizure during commission of a crime - (compelling govt interest)
> 1st amendment disclosing classified information - (compelling govt interest)
> 
> No right is absolute.  Such as during a national emergency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You most certainly can yell fire in a crowded theater.
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...g-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can, but you will.face consequences.
Click to expand...


 Only if someone gets hurt. You can yell it all day otherwise.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dragonlady said:


> The only reason these religious nuts are pushing for live, inperson services is for these "independent" ministers to get the cash out of the collection plates. They're willing to kill their parishoners for the cash.



So how many of them did you talk to in order to know this?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Crepitus said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly to you conservitards think "the general.welfare" is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As James Madison once said, only those enumerated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general welfare is right there in the constitution.  Sorry for your luck.
Click to expand...


And what James Madison said about general welfare was just that.  He said that general welfare in the constitution is limited to what is enumerated.  If you don't know what he meant by that, he meant that what's listed in the Constitution, not what any Howdy Doody thinks it means.


----------



## Natural Citizen

OldLady said:


> With any luck at all, 99.9% of ministers in these critical areas will keep their doors closed and worship on line in order to keep their parishioners safe until the case #'s come down and public health officials give the all clear.  Many outbreaks have been tied to church services all over the country.  I agree with Kagan on this, all the way.  Let's hope it doesn't lead to a slippery slope.



Kagan's view_ is _the slippery slope.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lysistrata said:


> Nobody is "being attacked." It is not a matter of religion. We all know what the rules are. The trash of all the religions are not following them. I like what the Israeli government did some months ago. A city of predominantly orthodox Jews did not follow the rules. The Israeli government just shut the city down; nobody goes in, nobody goes out. I don't see why people of some religious groups should be allowed to endanger entire communities. Being of a certain religion is not a get-out-of-jail-free, I-can-do-what-ever-I-please card.



And that's what's unconstitutional about it.  It violates our right to peaceful assembly and violates our equal protection under the law rights when the city or state allows strip clubs to operate and not churches. 








						Restaurant owner shares her frustration over dining ban after film crew sets up craft services next door
					

"Everything I own is being taken away from me and they set up a movie company right next to my outdoor patio," she says in the video.




					abc30.com


----------



## airplanemechanic

Crepitus said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry comrade but case law has no place when discussing the constitution,,,
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of that statement is that the supreme courts ability to determine constituti
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore temporary public health orders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First Amendment to our Constitution:
> _*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press; *or the right of the people peaceably to assemble*, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._​
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporates the First Amendment (previously held to apply only to the federal government) to all levels of government:
> ​_Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*_​​_Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State._​​_Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability._​​_Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void._​​_Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article._​
> And on top of all that, nearly all of these _“temporary public health orders”_ are not actual, valid laws anyway.  There is not any jurisdiction anywhere in the United states, where any one individual is given the authority to make law by unilateral dictate.  Valid laws must be created through the proper legislative process, or in many states, by putting it on the ballot to a direct vote of the people.
> 
> These _“temporary public health orders”_ have not been enacted by any valid method, so they are not laws, we are under no legal obligation to obey them, and no part of government has any legitimate authority to attempt to enforce them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crapitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> And stop lying about the death rate. You're murdering people with your lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, show me where temporary health orders have anything to go with congress making laws.
Click to expand...


Show me where "public health orders" are constitutional. We are not an oligarchy. We don't have one person making laws. We make laws with legislatures, law making bodies, that present bills and debate them and then vote on them. 

Keep in mind, they are "orders" given by a governor, that have absolutely no teeth as they are not passed by a legislature.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Crepitus said:


> The general welfare is right there in the constitution.  Sorry for your luck.



The general Welfare is in effect a limit on congress.

I've yet to see any of you quislings get it right, yet pretty much all of you pop off about it. 

Here's a snip from one of my previous postings on the topic the last time your brood started tossing the phrase around without so much as a hint of a clue as to what they were talking about....

_''The mention of the general Welfare in the Preamble was intended to serve as a limit in effect on the use of those delegated powers.

The only other mention of general Welfare is found in Article I, Sec. 8. There, too, the words were meant to serve as a limit in effect. A limit of the power granted under that clause. It does not empower the congress to spend tax money for any and all purpose arbitrarily on a pretense or even a belief that it is for the general welfare, and certainly not to Individuals and localities.

Congress possesses no ''general legislative authority.'' See Federalist #83, by Hamilton of all people, for clarification.

All who ratified the Constitution were in agreement on the limited and limiting meaning of ''general welfare'' in the Taxing Clause.

As Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton contended for the first time in 1791 ("Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States") in favor of a broader interpretation of this clause than he had formerly espoused and broader than that which Madison, with Hamilton's agreement, had presented in 1788 in The Federalist (especially number 41) as reflecting the controlling intent of the Framing Convention, which Madison and Jefferson consistently supported. Hamilton did not claim, however, that this clause gives to the Federal government any power, through taxing-spending, so as in effect to control directly or indirectly anything or anybody, or any activities of the people or of the State governments. Despite his assertion that this clause gives Congress a separate and substantive spending power, Hamilton cautioned expressly (Report on "Manufactures," 1791) that it only authorizes taxing and spending within the limits of what would serve the "general welfare" and does not imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the "general welfare" that it does "not carry a power to do any other thing not authorized in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication."

See also the Supreme Court's 1936 decision ascertaining and defining the original, controlling intent. That would be the 1936 Carter case.

"Congress, entirely apart from those powers delegated by the Constitution, may enact laws to promote the general welfare, have never been accepted but always definitely rejected by this court."

It also decided that the Framing Convention "made no grant of authority to Congress to legislate substantively for the general welfare (citing 1936 Butler case) and no such authority exists, save as the general welfare may be promoted by the exercise of the powers which are granted."

The American people have never amended the Constitution so as to change the limited and limiting meaning of the words "general Welfare" in the Taxing Clause, as originally intended by The Framers and Adopters in 1787-1788.

I'm gonna go ahead and call checkmate ahead of time so the usual suspects know not to waste their time.''_


----------



## Crepitus

airplanemechanic said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry comrade but case law has no place when discussing the constitution,,,
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of that statement is that the supreme courts ability to determine constituti
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore temporary public health orders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First Amendment to our Constitution:
> _*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press; *or the right of the people peaceably to assemble*, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._​
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporates the First Amendment (previously held to apply only to the federal government) to all levels of government:
> ​_Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*_​​_Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State._​​_Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability._​​_Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void._​​_Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article._​
> And on top of all that, nearly all of these _“temporary public health orders”_ are not actual, valid laws anyway.  There is not any jurisdiction anywhere in the United states, where any one individual is given the authority to make law by unilateral dictate.  Valid laws must be created through the proper legislative process, or in many states, by putting it on the ballot to a direct vote of the people.
> 
> These _“temporary public health orders”_ have not been enacted by any valid method, so they are not laws, we are under no legal obligation to obey them, and no part of government has any legitimate authority to attempt to enforce them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crapitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> And stop lying about the death rate. You're murdering people with your lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, show me where temporary health orders have anything to go with congress making laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me where "public health orders" are constitutional. We are not an oligarchy. We don't have one person making laws. We make laws with legislatures, law making bodies, that present bills and debate them and then vote on them.
> 
> Keep in mind, they are "orders" given by a governor, that have absolutely no teeth as they are not passed by a legislature.
Click to expand...

Lol, show me where they aren't!  The constitution lays out the powers of the federal government and specifically says everything else is left to go the states.  It's very clear.


----------



## pknopp

Crepitus said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry comrade but case law has no place when discussing the constitution,,,
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of that statement is that the supreme courts ability to determine constituti
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore temporary public health orders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First Amendment to our Constitution:
> _*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press; *or the right of the people peaceably to assemble*, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._​
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporates the First Amendment (previously held to apply only to the federal government) to all levels of government:
> ​_Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*_​​_Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State._​​_Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability._​​_Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void._​​_Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article._​
> And on top of all that, nearly all of these _“temporary public health orders”_ are not actual, valid laws anyway.  There is not any jurisdiction anywhere in the United states, where any one individual is given the authority to make law by unilateral dictate.  Valid laws must be created through the proper legislative process, or in many states, by putting it on the ballot to a direct vote of the people.
> 
> These _“temporary public health orders”_ have not been enacted by any valid method, so they are not laws, we are under no legal obligation to obey them, and no part of government has any legitimate authority to attempt to enforce them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crapitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> And stop lying about the death rate. You're murdering people with your lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, show me where temporary health orders have anything to go with congress making laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me where "public health orders" are constitutional. We are not an oligarchy. We don't have one person making laws. We make laws with legislatures, law making bodies, that present bills and debate them and then vote on them.
> 
> Keep in mind, they are "orders" given by a governor, that have absolutely no teeth as they are not passed by a legislature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, show me where they aren't!  The constitution lays out the powers of the federal government and specifically says everything else is left to go the states.  It's very clear.
Click to expand...


 The 14th made that moot. The 14th made all requirements on the Federal government apply also to the states.


----------



## Crepitus

airplanemechanic said:


> Show me where "public health orders" are constitutional


No.  Show me where they aren't.  The constitution lays out the powers of the Federal government and specifically leaves everything else to the states.  It's very clear.


----------



## Crepitus

pknopp said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry comrade but case law has no place when discussing the constitution,,,
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of that statement is that the supreme courts ability to determine constituti
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore temporary public health orders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First Amendment to our Constitution:
> _*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press; *or the right of the people peaceably to assemble*, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._​
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporates the First Amendment (previously held to apply only to the federal government) to all levels of government:
> ​_Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*_​​_Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State._​​_Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability._​​_Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void._​​_Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article._​
> And on top of all that, nearly all of these _“temporary public health orders”_ are not actual, valid laws anyway.  There is not any jurisdiction anywhere in the United states, where any one individual is given the authority to make law by unilateral dictate.  Valid laws must be created through the proper legislative process, or in many states, by putting it on the ballot to a direct vote of the people.
> 
> These _“temporary public health orders”_ have not been enacted by any valid method, so they are not laws, we are under no legal obligation to obey them, and no part of government has any legitimate authority to attempt to enforce them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crapitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> And stop lying about the death rate. You're murdering people with your lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, show me where temporary health orders have anything to go with congress making laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me where "public health orders" are constitutional. We are not an oligarchy. We don't have one person making laws. We make laws with legislatures, law making bodies, that present bills and debate them and then vote on them.
> 
> Keep in mind, they are "orders" given by a governor, that have absolutely no teeth as they are not passed by a legislature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, show me where they aren't!  The constitution lays out the powers of the federal government and specifically says everything else is left to go the states.  It's very clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th made that moot. The 14th made all requirements on the Federal government apply also to the states.
Click to expand...

And still there's nothing anywhere prohibiting temporary health orders.

Do you seriously think the founding father would handicap the country by restricting temporary public health iand or safety orders?

Think man!  Don't just emote!  Use that brain for something besides keeping your head inflated.


----------



## pknopp

Crepitus said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry comrade but case law has no place when discussing the constitution,,,
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of that statement is that the supreme courts ability to determine constituti
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore temporary public health orders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First Amendment to our Constitution:
> _*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press; *or the right of the people peaceably to assemble*, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._​
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporates the First Amendment (previously held to apply only to the federal government) to all levels of government:
> ​_Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*_​​_Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State._​​_Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability._​​_Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void._​​_Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article._​
> And on top of all that, nearly all of these _“temporary public health orders”_ are not actual, valid laws anyway.  There is not any jurisdiction anywhere in the United states, where any one individual is given the authority to make law by unilateral dictate.  Valid laws must be created through the proper legislative process, or in many states, by putting it on the ballot to a direct vote of the people.
> 
> These _“temporary public health orders”_ have not been enacted by any valid method, so they are not laws, we are under no legal obligation to obey them, and no part of government has any legitimate authority to attempt to enforce them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crapitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> And stop lying about the death rate. You're murdering people with your lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, show me where temporary health orders have anything to go with congress making laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me where "public health orders" are constitutional. We are not an oligarchy. We don't have one person making laws. We make laws with legislatures, law making bodies, that present bills and debate them and then vote on them.
> 
> Keep in mind, they are "orders" given by a governor, that have absolutely no teeth as they are not passed by a legislature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, show me where they aren't!  The constitution lays out the powers of the federal government and specifically says everything else is left to go the states.  It's very clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th made that moot. The 14th made all requirements on the Federal government apply also to the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And still there's nothing anywhere prohibiting temporary health orders.
> 
> Do you seriously think the founding father would handicap the country by restricting temporary public health iand or safety orders?
> 
> Think man!  Don't just emote!  Use that brain for something besides keeping your head inflated.
Click to expand...


 Our rights all have negative aspects. But all the same the reasons these are overturned is because they are not equally applied for the most part. We can pack an airplane full of people but people can't go to church.


----------



## badger2

A Massachusetts Bay Colony replay.


----------



## airplanemechanic

Crepitus said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry comrade but case law has no place when discussing the constitution,,,
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of that statement is that the supreme courts ability to determine constituti
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore temporary public health orders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First Amendment to our Constitution:
> _*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press; *or the right of the people peaceably to assemble*, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._​
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporates the First Amendment (previously held to apply only to the federal government) to all levels of government:
> ​_Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*_​​_Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State._​​_Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability._​​_Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void._​​_Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article._​
> And on top of all that, nearly all of these _“temporary public health orders”_ are not actual, valid laws anyway.  There is not any jurisdiction anywhere in the United states, where any one individual is given the authority to make law by unilateral dictate.  Valid laws must be created through the proper legislative process, or in many states, by putting it on the ballot to a direct vote of the people.
> 
> These _“temporary public health orders”_ have not been enacted by any valid method, so they are not laws, we are under no legal obligation to obey them, and no part of government has any legitimate authority to attempt to enforce them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crapitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> And stop lying about the death rate. You're murdering people with your lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, show me where temporary health orders have anything to go with congress making laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me where "public health orders" are constitutional. We are not an oligarchy. We don't have one person making laws. We make laws with legislatures, law making bodies, that present bills and debate them and then vote on them.
> 
> Keep in mind, they are "orders" given by a governor, that have absolutely no teeth as they are not passed by a legislature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, show me where they aren't!  The constitution lays out the powers of the federal government and specifically says everything else is left to go the states.  It's very clear.
Click to expand...


Um, "everything else" doesn't mean making laws and bypassing congress.

So no, show me where it's constitutional to make "health orders" out of the blue. Things are by default unconstitutional unless the constitution allows them.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Crepitus said:


> Lol, show me where they aren't! The constitution lays out the powers of the federal government and specifically says everything else is left to go the states. It's very clear.



  That's not what it says.

  Note well that the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states or to the people those powers not explicitly designated to the federal government, makes mention of powers prohibited to the states.  Especially under incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment, such prohibited powers would include any that violate any of the rights asserted in the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Crepitus said:


> Lol, show me where they aren't! The constitution lays out the powers of the federal government and specifically says everything else is left to go the states. It's very clear.





Crepitus said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where "public health orders" are constitutional
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Show me where they aren't.  The constitution lays out the powers of the Federal government and specifically leaves everything else to the states.  It's very clear.
Click to expand...


  Repeating a lie does not make it true.


----------



## airplanemechanic

Bob Blaylock said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, show me where they aren't! The constitution lays out the powers of the federal government and specifically says everything else is left to go the states. It's very clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what it says.
> 
> Note well that the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states or to the people those powers not explicitly designated to the federal government, makes mention of powers prohibited to the states.  Especially under incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment, such prohibited powers would include any that violate any of the rights asserted in the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...


You're way the fuck over that idiots head. 

His understanding of the constitution stops at "orange man bad."


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Crepitus said:


> And still there's nothing anywhere prohibiting temporary health orders.



  Freedom of assembly, as explicitly affirmed and protected under the First Amendment.

  That prohibits these bullshit _“temporary health orders”_ that violate the right to assemble.

  That's aside from the fact that these bullshit _“temporary health orders”_ are being enacted by illegal dictates from Governors and mayors, and not via any legitimate legislative process.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

airplanemechanic said:


> So no, show me where it's constitutional to make "health orders" out of the blue.


Show us where it isn't? I thought that was the standard, now. And no, im not blaming Trump for that. It was that way before him.


----------



## airplanemechanic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So no, show me where it's constitutional to make "health orders" out of the blue.
> 
> 
> 
> Show us where it isn't? I thought that was the standard, now. And no, im not blaming Trump for that. It was that way before him.
Click to expand...


Show me where it is. Things are not constitutional by default, they are unconstitutional by default. The constitution is all encompassing. The gov't can't do anything the constitution doesn't allow it to do.

Show me where laws can be passed without a legislative process. There is no way that a law passed without a legislature can be considered constitutional when it violates one of the rights in the bill of rights. No idiot would stand here and say that's legal.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Crepitus said:


> Lol, show me where they aren't! The constitution lays out the powers of the federal government and specifically says everything else is left to go the states. It's very clear.



Correct, provided they don't impede the rights laid out in the US Constitution.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Crepitus said:


> And still there's nothing anywhere prohibiting temporary health orders.
> 
> Do you seriously think the founding father would handicap the country by restricting temporary public health iand or safety orders?
> 
> Think man! Don't just emote! Use that brain for something besides keeping your head inflated.




You are not following this too well.  Perhaps if I make you think about it you will:  

Can my state of Ohio bring back slavery because we desperately need workers, and if not, why not?  

Can my state disallow women from voting in elections because we feel they don't understand politics enough, and if not, why not? 

Can my state make all guns illegal because we believe we have too many shootings, and if not, why not?


----------



## airplanemechanic

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> And still there's nothing anywhere prohibiting temporary health orders.
> 
> Do you seriously think the founding father would handicap the country by restricting temporary public health iand or safety orders?
> 
> Think man! Don't just emote! Use that brain for something besides keeping your head inflated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not following this too well.  Perhaps if I make you think about it you will:
> 
> Can my state of Ohio bring back slavery because we desperately need workers, and if not, why not?
> 
> Can my state disallow women from voting in elections because we feel they don't understand politics enough, and if not, why not?
> 
> Can my state make all guns illegal because we believe we have too many shootings, and if not, why not?
Click to expand...


But it's not even that. The STATES aren't passing these covid laws, the GOVERNORS and MAYORS are making them all on their own, bypassing our legislative process of making laws.

So if they weren't illegal on their face because of how they were created, they're illegal because they infringe on rights given by the constitution.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

airplanemechanic said:


> Show me where laws can be passed without a legislative process. There is no way that a law passed without a legislature can be considered constitutional when it violates one of the rights in the bill of rights. No idiot would stand here and say that's legal.



  Except that we have idiots right here in this very thread, saying exactly that which you are saying no idiot would say.


----------



## Crepitus

airplanemechanic said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry comrade but case law has no place when discussing the constitution,,,
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of that statement is that the supreme courts ability to determine constituti
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore temporary public health orders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First Amendment to our Constitution:
> _*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press; *or the right of the people peaceably to assemble*, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._​
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporates the First Amendment (previously held to apply only to the federal government) to all levels of government:
> ​_Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*_​​_Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State._​​_Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability._​​_Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void._​​_Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article._​
> And on top of all that, nearly all of these _“temporary public health orders”_ are not actual, valid laws anyway.  There is not any jurisdiction anywhere in the United states, where any one individual is given the authority to make law by unilateral dictate.  Valid laws must be created through the proper legislative process, or in many states, by putting it on the ballot to a direct vote of the people.
> 
> These _“temporary public health orders”_ have not been enacted by any valid method, so they are not laws, we are under no legal obligation to obey them, and no part of government has any legitimate authority to attempt to enforce them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crapitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> And stop lying about the death rate. You're murdering people with your lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, show me where temporary health orders have anything to go with congress making laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me where "public health orders" are constitutional. We are not an oligarchy. We don't have one person making laws. We make laws with legislatures, law making bodies, that present bills and debate them and then vote on them.
> 
> Keep in mind, they are "orders" given by a governor, that have absolutely no teeth as they are not passed by a legislature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, show me where they aren't!  The constitution lays out the powers of the federal government and specifically says everything else is left to go the states.  It's very clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, "everything else" doesn't mean making laws and bypassing congress.
> 
> So no, show me where it's constitutional to make "health orders" out of the blue. Things are by default unconstitutional unless the constitution allows them.
Click to expand...

Where have they infringed on your Constitutional rights?  These common sense orders are perfectly Constitutional.  No one is infringing on your right to practice the religion of your choice, even if you have to do not in smaller groups for a while.  Wearing a mask?  Where does it say the states can make laws about wearing pants in public?  Yet every state has laws about that.

Get real.  A few preventative measures to save lives are not unconstitutional.


----------



## Crepitus

airplanemechanic said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, show me where they aren't! The constitution lays out the powers of the federal government and specifically says everything else is left to go the states. It's very clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what it says.
> 
> Note well that the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states or to the people those powers not explicitly designated to the federal government, makes mention of powers prohibited to the states.  Especially under incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment, such prohibited powers would include any that violate any of the rights asserted in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're way the fuck over that idiots head.
> 
> His understanding of the constitution stops at "orange man bad."
Click to expand...

Don't be stupider than you have to be, Son.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

airplanemechanic said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> And still there's nothing anywhere prohibiting temporary health orders.
> 
> Do you seriously think the founding father would handicap the country by restricting temporary public health iand or safety orders?
> 
> Think man! Don't just emote! Use that brain for something besides keeping your head inflated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not following this too well.  Perhaps if I make you think about it you will:
> 
> Can my state of Ohio bring back slavery because we desperately need workers, and if not, why not?
> 
> Can my state disallow women from voting in elections because we feel they don't understand politics enough, and if not, why not?
> 
> Can my state make all guns illegal because we believe we have too many shootings, and if not, why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it's not even that. The STATES aren't passing these covid laws, the GOVERNORS and MAYORS are making them all on their own, bypassing our legislative process of making laws.
> 
> So if they weren't illegal on their face because of how they were created, they're illegal because they infringe on rights given by the constitution.
Click to expand...


I considered that.  But what I'm trying to do is point out to Crepitus how it's unconstitutional on the federal level.  The Constitution was not written for what government can do to us, it was written to outline what government can't do to us.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Crepitus said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry comrade but case law has no place when discussing the constitution,,,
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of that statement is that the supreme courts ability to determine constituti
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore temporary public health orders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First Amendment to our Constitution:
> _*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press; *or the right of the people peaceably to assemble*, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._​
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporates the First Amendment (previously held to apply only to the federal government) to all levels of government:
> ​_Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*_​​_Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State._​​_Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability._​​_Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void._​​_Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article._​
> And on top of all that, nearly all of these _“temporary public health orders”_ are not actual, valid laws anyway.  There is not any jurisdiction anywhere in the United states, where any one individual is given the authority to make law by unilateral dictate.  Valid laws must be created through the proper legislative process, or in many states, by putting it on the ballot to a direct vote of the people.
> 
> These _“temporary public health orders”_ have not been enacted by any valid method, so they are not laws, we are under no legal obligation to obey them, and no part of government has any legitimate authority to attempt to enforce them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crapitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> And stop lying about the death rate. You're murdering people with your lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, show me where temporary health orders have anything to go with congress making laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me where "public health orders" are constitutional. We are not an oligarchy. We don't have one person making laws. We make laws with legislatures, law making bodies, that present bills and debate them and then vote on them.
> 
> Keep in mind, they are "orders" given by a governor, that have absolutely no teeth as they are not passed by a legislature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, show me where they aren't!  The constitution lays out the powers of the federal government and specifically says everything else is left to go the states.  It's very clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, "everything else" doesn't mean making laws and bypassing congress.
> 
> So no, show me where it's constitutional to make "health orders" out of the blue. Things are by default unconstitutional unless the constitution allows them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where have they infringed on your Constitutional rights?  These common sense orders are perfectly Constitutional.  No one is infringing on your right to practice the religion of your choice, even if you have to do not in smaller groups for a while.  Wearing a mask?  Where does it say the states can make laws about wearing pants in public?  Yet every state has laws about that.
> 
> Get real.  A few preventative measures to save lives are not unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

The right to peaceably assemble

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

skews13 said:


> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.



Oh, please.  You assclowns have been rewriting the Constitution from the bench for generations.  And nobody is expanding the court, so shut up.  Considering the Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, it would appear to me they are actually upholding the Constitution, whereas your viewpoint would be rewriting of it.


----------



## Lysistrata

JustAGuy1 said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who choose to attend these super-spreader events with not even a mask or public distancing are dirty people who disrespect their communities and their nation. It doesn't matter that the gathering is "religious" or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh stuff it. You people are abject cowards. Don't go out, just hide. The rest of us aren't afraid.
Click to expand...


You people are dirty disease spreaders who don't care about anyone else. You are too stupid to understand epidemiology and too self-centered to care about your fellow human beings.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Crepitus said:


> Get real. A few preventative measures to save lives are not unconstitutional.



  It takes a Crepitus-level of stupidity to believe that any of this is being done to save lives.  From the beginning, this has been nothing more than an excuse for corrupt politicians to enrich and empower themselves, to our detriment.

  And yes, it absolutely is unconstitutional, on several fronts, all of which have been clearly explained to you.


----------



## Lysistrata

Bob Blaylock said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get real. A few preventative measures to save lives are not unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a Crepitus-level of stupidity to believe that any of this is being done to save lives.  From the beginning, this has been nothing more than an excuse for corrupt politicians to enrich and empower themselves, to our detriment.
> 
> And yes, it absolutely is unconstitutional, on several fronts, all of which have been clearly explained to you.
Click to expand...

WWJD?


----------



## Lysistrata

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m still not sure why conservatives have such a hard time understanding infectious disease transmission. Exposing yourself unnecessarily to COVID-19 and then gathering in fellowship without the proper safeguards doesn’t sound terribly Christian to me.
> 
> It isn’t, of course. But then when have these folks ever _really_ been “pro-life”?
> 
> 
> 
> When they oppose the killing of babies.
> 
> I notice all the anti religion bigots all assume that being in church automatically means a total lack of
> covid virus protocol.
> 
> Why is that?
Click to expand...


Who kills babies? What part of the human gestational process are you talking about?


----------



## j-mac

Crepitus said:


> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore temporary public health orders?
> 
> And stop lying about the death rate.  You're murdering people with your lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your rhetoric is murdering brain cells
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that your drug habit.
Click to expand...


Nope, don't do drugs, I'm a truck driver....Nice try though...It highlights that in many cases how you talk out of your ass....


----------



## Crepitus

j-mac said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore temporary public health orders?
> 
> And stop lying about the death rate.  You're murdering people with your lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your rhetoric is murdering brain cells
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that your drug habit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, don't do drugs, I'm a truck driver....Nice try though...It highlights that in many cases how you talk out of your ass....
Click to expand...

Well something has killed an awful lot of your braincells, as you just admitted.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

skews13 said:


> DukeU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you need to polish up a bit on your history. Freedom is the fundamental reason America was founded. The courts have no right or authority to undo those freedoms established in our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to Native Americans, African, and Chinese slaves. What a dumbass statement. And right in tune with the entitled asshole mindset. And lets not forget the rights of women. Which according to the good book are subserviants, to the entitled asshole mindset.
> 
> Every state has the duty to protect its citizens above everything else. Rights don't mean anything when you're dead. Or enslaved.
> 
> And what about those "Free" Americans that can become infected with the virus, after coming into contact with one of those entitled assholes, who think their "right" to worship, is above everyone else's "right", to not be infected?  Of forced to have to endure their ignorance, because they exercise their "Freedom" from religion?
> 
> So they don't have the same "Freedoms". Is that what you're insinuating?
> 
> So in your estimation, burning women to death, or drowning them, because the might be percieved by one of these fundamentalist shit for brains assholes, of being a witch, should be a First Amendment right also, based on this new ruling by the newly packed court?
> 
> What other religious atrocities from the old world should we reinstate to accomodate these worhippers "rights"?
Click to expand...

Meanwhile in that state businesses were allowed to open and have gatherings of 25 percent capacity. Thats all the supreme court did is say it was blatantly wrong to tell churches they could not open to the same standard.


----------



## j-mac

Crepitus said:


> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore temporary public health orders?
> 
> And stop lying about the death rate.  You're murdering people with your lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your rhetoric is murdering brain cells
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that your drug habit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, don't do drugs, I'm a truck driver....Nice try though...It highlights that in many cases how you talk out of your ass....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well something has killed an awful lot of your braincells, as you just admitted.
Click to expand...


Yeah, reading your bullshit....


----------



## bripat9643

Crepitus said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't require citizens to have any regards for each other.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly to you conservitards think "the general.welfare" is?
Click to expand...

It's not writing checks to individuals, moron.


----------



## Crepitus

j-mac said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where it says you have the right to ignore temporary public health orders?
> 
> And stop lying about the death rate.  You're murdering people with your lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your rhetoric is murdering brain cells
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that your drug habit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, don't do drugs, I'm a truck driver....Nice try though...It highlights that in many cases how you talk out of your ass....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well something has killed an awful lot of your braincells, as you just admitted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, reading your bullshit....
Click to expand...

That wouldn't be possible even if I was the one posting bullshit.  However, you're the conspiracy theorist whack-job tRumpling here, not me.


----------



## Crepitus

bripat9643 said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't require citizens to have any regards for each other.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly to you conservitards think "the general.welfare" is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not writing checks to individuals, moron.
Click to expand...

And you know this because?


----------



## bripat9643

Crepitus said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't require citizens to have any regards for each other.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly to you conservitards think "the general.welfare" is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not writing checks to individuals, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you know this because?
Click to expand...

Logic and facts.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

airplanemechanic said:


> me where it is.


Show me where it isn't. That's the standard, now. Not my rules.


----------



## Crepitus

bripat9643 said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't require citizens to have any regards for each other.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly to you conservitards think "the general.welfare" is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not writing checks to individuals, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you know this because?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Logic and facts.
Click to expand...

Which of course you can explain to us, right?


----------



## danielpalos

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.


It is time to abolish our extra-Constitutional alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.  Don't be "Big Chickens" right wingers.  If y'all are not worried about the pandemic why should y'all be worried about crime, drugs, or terror?  The pandemic has killed more people than all of those other issues combined.  If y'all are brave enough to go maskless during a pandemic y'all should be brave enough to not need the wasteful spending on those endless costs.


----------



## bripat9643

Crepitus said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't require citizens to have any regards for each other.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly to you conservitards think "the general.welfare" is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not writing checks to individuals, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you know this because?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Logic and facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of course you can explain to us, right?
Click to expand...

When did the government start writing checks to individuals?


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution doesn't require citizens to have any regards for each other.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly to you conservitards think "the general.welfare" is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not writing checks to individuals, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you know this because?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Logic and facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of course you can explain to us, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did the government start writing checks to individuals?
Click to expand...

From the beginning.  Eminent domain can require it.


----------



## skews13

Ray From Cleveland said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> And still there's nothing anywhere prohibiting temporary health orders.
> 
> Do you seriously think the founding father would handicap the country by restricting temporary public health iand or safety orders?
> 
> Think man! Don't just emote! Use that brain for something besides keeping your head inflated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not following this too well.  Perhaps if I make you think about it you will:
> 
> Can my state of Ohio bring back slavery because we desperately need workers, and if not, why not?
> 
> Can my state disallow women from voting in elections because we feel they don't understand politics enough, and if not, why not?
> 
> Can my state make all guns illegal because we believe we have too many shootings, and if not, why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it's not even that. The STATES aren't passing these covid laws, the GOVERNORS and MAYORS are making them all on their own, bypassing our legislative process of making laws.
> 
> So if they weren't illegal on their face because of how they were created, they're illegal because they infringe on rights given by the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I considered that.  But what I'm trying to do is point out to Crepitus how it's unconstitutional on the federal level.  The Constitution was not written for what government can do to us, it was written to outline what government can't do to us.
Click to expand...


It certainly is. 

Under the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment and U.S. Supreme Court decisions over nearly 200 years, state governments have the primary authority to control the spread of dangerous diseases within their jurisdictions. The 10th Amendment, which gives states all powers not specifically given to the federal government, allows them the authority to take public health emergency actions, such as setting quarantines and business restrictions. 









						Two centuries of law guide legal approach to modern pandemic
					

As COVID-19 continues its assault on the country, residents in more than 10 states have been ordered to stay home and businesses, including restaurants, health clubs and entire malls, have been closed as governors nationwide take extraordinary steps in an effort to protect public health. Under...




					www.americanbar.org
				



.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

skews13 said:


> The 10th Amendment, which gives states all powers not specifically given to the federal government…



_The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, _*nor prohibited by it to the States*_, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people._​
  Violating any rights affirmed in the Bill of Rights and incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment would constitute _“powers prohibited by it to the States”_.  This certainly includes the freedoms of religion, speech, and association which are openly being attacked under the guise of the #CoronaHoax2020.


----------



## Concerned American

JustAGuy1 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good fucking god you're dumber than a box of rocks. So a lung infection with a 99% survival rate is enough to waive our rights? Do you even fucking realize the precedent you set with something like that?
> 
> The SCOTUS are put there to uphold the constitution. Show me where it says that our rights can be waived during a pandemic. If you can't come up with that then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *10th Amendment*
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. According to you idiots the ONLY amendment that matters is the 10th. You're an idiot.
Click to expand...

Reading isn't big in their minds either--the 10th clearly states that it is to be used for anything that is not addressed in the constitution (paraphrasing).  That does not mean it overrules other amendments to the constitution.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.


No one is being compelled to attend religious services.  There is no religious extremism.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

OldLady said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> With any luck at all, 99.9% of ministers in these critical areas will keep their doors closed and worship on line in order to keep their parishioners safe until the case #'s come down and public health officials give the all clear.  Many outbreaks have been tied to church services all over the country.  I agree with Kagan on this, all the way.  Let's hope it doesn't lead to a slippery slope.
> 
> _Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer, dissented from this order in a blunt opinion highlighting the possibility that her colleagues’ decision will kill people. “Justices of this Court are not scientists,” Kagan began. “Nor do we know much about public health policy. Yet today the Court displaces the judgments of experts about how to respond to a raging pandemic. … That mandate defies our caselaw, exceeds our judicial role, and risks worsening the pandemic.” She pointed out that, contrary to the court’s belief, California has not actually treated churches less favorably than secular businesses and assemblies: Political meetings, lectures, and plays are also banned, she wrote—and these “secular gatherings,” like religious worship, “are constitutionally protected” by the First Amendment. The court simply created “a special exception for worship services.”
> 
> “To state the obvious, judges do not know what scientists and public health experts do,” Kagan explained. “So it is alarming that the Court second-guesses the judgments of expert officials, and displaces their conclusions with its own. In the worst public health crisis in a century, this foray into armchair epidemiology cannot end well.”_
> 
> 
> 
> That is fine and dandy... let the individual church decide but not the government.  when it come to religion the government  should have absolutely no say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the majority, even of evangelicals agree.  It is a small but loud number of evangelicals leading this push to ignore safety protocols.  Ironically, they have forgotten what being a Christian is all about.
> 
> _  “We understand that part of what God is giving to us right now is an invitation to care for our neighbors,” said the Rt. Rev. Thomas James Brown, the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Maine. “One of the ways we can care for our neighbors is to do everything we can to slow and stop the spread of this virus. That means following every possible safety protocol.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most churches are following Maine’s COVID-19 restrictions, even as loud minority fights them
> 
> 
> That small group of evangelical churches has made a loud show of pushing back against the state’s restrictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bangordailynews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
Click to expand...

The Episcopals accept same sex marriage.  Their advice isn't worth sewage.    Following safety protocols doesn't extend to buttfucking.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Attending a religious service is a far cry from burning women at the stake.   Communist democrats would like to eliminate religion in all forms just like the parent country China.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Again the state opened business to 25 percent but said no religious service at all. all the supreme court did was say churches had the same right to be open to 25 percent.


----------



## danielpalos

Tipsycatlover said:


> Attending a religious service is a far cry from burning women at the stake.   Communist democrats would like to eliminate religion in all forms just like the parent country China.


Not at all.  True witness bearing is morally important.  Insist on a simple plan for a Commune of Heaven on Earth from Communists!


----------



## EvilCat Breath

danielpalos said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Attending a religious service is a far cry from burning women at the stake.   Communist democrats would like to eliminate religion in all forms just like the parent country China.
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  True witness bearing is morally important.  Insist on a simple plan for a Commune of Heaven on Earth from Communists!
Click to expand...

Why would I bother giving you attention when all you want to do is play with yourself.  Go sit in the corner and smell your fingers.


----------



## danielpalos

Tipsycatlover said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Attending a religious service is a far cry from burning women at the stake.   Communist democrats would like to eliminate religion in all forms just like the parent country China.
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  True witness bearing is morally important.  Insist on a simple plan for a Commune of Heaven on Earth from Communists!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I bother giving you attention when all you want to do is play with yourself.  Go sit in the corner and smell your fingers.
Click to expand...

If you believed more in equality, you would sit next to me, and then tell me to go smell my fingers.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Ray From Cleveland said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you possibly call a Germ that has killed close to half a million Americans a hoax?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My Uncle died late last summer from colon cancer.  He was 94 and living with one of his sons.  When things looked hopeless, my cousin called the family to come over and say their likely final goodbye.  They did, about a dozen people came to visit in the room, and then they hauled him to the VA.  When he got there, he tested positive for Covid.
> 
> All 12 people including my father had to either quarantine or be tested.  None of them had it.  My Uncle who couldn't walk never went anywhere.  He had one nurse come in, and she tested negative as well.  So where did he get Covid from?   He died about two weeks later.
> 
> A month or so went by and my cousins stopped by for a visit. They were furious that the hospital ruled his death as Covid instead of what really killed him which was the cancer.  One of them had a picture of his death certificate on his phone.  The VA called him a few weeks after my Uncles death to ask his opinion of the care his father received.  He told them the care was fine, but......
> 
> The doctor on the other end of the phone told him to take a number, because they have many complaints about patients that were ruled a Covid death instead of the real cause.
Click to expand...


Nothing new here. I recall there were also "COVID" deaths reported for people who died of gunshot wounds, suicide, and at least one motorcycle crash.

Last I saw, average age for death from it was 80 or 81 with an average of three or four (seen both) comorbidities. (Plus...well, being 80 years old.)


----------



## Jarlaxle

Crepitus said:


> They're stupid.  When they attend an activity with close contact and no mask they are putting themselves, their friends, and their families at risk.  For NO VIABLE REASON.  It's sheer stupidity.


I have a greater chance of dying because I decided to ride my motorcycle than I do from COVID.


----------



## danielpalos

Jarlaxle said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're stupid.  When they attend an activity with close contact and no mask they are putting themselves, their friends, and their families at risk.  For NO VIABLE REASON.  It's sheer stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a greater chance of dying because I decided to ride my motorcycle than I do from COVID.
Click to expand...

Then, don't be such "Big Chickens" right wingers.  Abolish our useless and alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.  You have more of a chance dying from COVID than you do from those three other issues combined.


----------



## jbrownson0831

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.


Awwww did the atheist sheeple get his feelings hurted??


----------



## Crepitus

Jarlaxle said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're stupid.  When they attend an activity with close contact and no mask they are putting themselves, their friends, and their families at risk.  For NO VIABLE REASON.  It's sheer stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a greater chance of dying because I decided to ride my motorcycle than I do from COVID.
Click to expand...

Really?  More than one in one thousand people in the US has died of covid.  Do you really think you're chances of dying on a ride are worse than one in a thousand?  Because if so I'd take some riding lessons or something.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Crepitus said:


> More than one in one thousand people in the US has died of covid.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Says Anything Without Thinking And Believes It Valid By Bandwagon Fallacy "

* Blathering Idiot Bean Dip **


danielpalos said:


> Then, don't be such "Big Chickens" right wingers.  Abolish our useless and alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.  You have more of a chance dying from COVID than you do from those three other issues combined.


Read the entire notification , witless troll . 



			https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=845195
		

_Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs)—especially those based in Mexico—will continue to undermine public health and safety in the Homeland and threaten U.S. national security interests.  They represent an acute and devastating threat to public health and safety in the Homeland and a significant threat to U.S. national security interests. Beyond their complicity in the 71,000 drug overdose deaths in the U.S. last year, TCOs destabilize partner nations, decrease citizen confidence in good governance, foment corruption, and destroy confidence in the international banking system. Countering these organizations’ malign activities will remain an enduring challenge to US safety and security. TCOs will continue to take advantage of illegal migration flows to enter the United States and attempt to exploit legal immigration avenues. Criminal elementsattempting to provide a level of legitimacy to their illicit immigration claims_
_by intermingling with migrants travelling to the US Southwest border pose an intrinsic risk to the U.S. lawful immigration system.
_
_Mexican border states experienced nearly 12,000 homicides in 2019, most of which involved TCOs._

** Objectivity As An Excuse for Ignorance On The Level Of Mentally Retarded **

_Surah 5:33
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,_



** Chinese Biological Attack And Film Actors Guild Fans **


----------



## danielpalos

Nothing but right wing bigotry.  If right wingers are brave enough to go maskless during a pandemic why such "cowards" regarding your worthless and alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.  Be brave, right wingers not just plain political bigots.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Crepitus said:


> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
Click to expand...

Biden is sure killing thousands of Americans with Covid. How and his idiot followers claimed to have all the answers but he's implemented fuck all and the cases are accelerating. What a right fucking moron to appoint.


----------



## Crepitus

Captain Caveman said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Biden is sure killing thousands of Americans with Covid. How and his idiot followers claimed to have all the answers but he's implemented fuck all and the cases are accelerating. What a right fucking moron to appoint.
Click to expand...

Actually cases are dropping.

Also, since it takes weeks to get sick and die from covid-19 most of the people who have died since the inauguration were already sick.

Thanks dOnald.


----------



## anotherlife

Rewriting laws is fun, nothing makes unsuspecting decent people squirm like a few new laws every year.  Do you own a gun?


----------



## Captain Caveman

Crepitus said:


> Captain Caveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Biden is sure killing thousands of Americans with Covid. How and his idiot followers claimed to have all the answers but he's implemented fuck all and the cases are accelerating. What a right fucking moron to appoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually cases are dropping.
> 
> Also, since it takes weeks to get sick and die from covid-19 most of the people who have died since the inauguration were already sick.
> 
> Thanks dOnald.
Click to expand...

Inauguration day 12:32pm ET 412,415 American Covid deaths.






Just simply deduct those from current deaths.









						United States COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer
					

United States Coronavirus update with statistics and graphs: total and new cases, deaths per day, mortality and recovery rates, current active cases, recoveries, trends and timeline.




					www.worldometers.info
				




So at 9:24am GMT, Biden has killed 492,521- 412,145 = 80,376 Americans. I'm sure you can do the maths on infections and one step further, Trump's v Biden's average weekly Covid deaths in office. You will find, Biden is delivering greater numbers but I thought Biden and the Lefties had all the answers!!! It would appear Biden et. al. were full of shit.


----------



## Crepitus

Captain Caveman said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Captain Caveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Biden is sure killing thousands of Americans with Covid. How and his idiot followers claimed to have all the answers but he's implemented fuck all and the cases are accelerating. What a right fucking moron to appoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually cases are dropping.
> 
> Also, since it takes weeks to get sick and die from covid-19 most of the people who have died since the inauguration were already sick.
> 
> Thanks dOnald.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inauguration day 12:32pm ET 412,415 American Covid deaths.
> View attachment 456561
> 
> 
> Just simply deduct those from current deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer
> 
> 
> United States Coronavirus update with statistics and graphs: total and new cases, deaths per day, mortality and recovery rates, current active cases, recoveries, trends and timeline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.worldometers.info
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So at 9:24am GMT, Biden has killed 492,521- 412,145 = 80,376 Americans. I'm sure you can do the maths on infections and one step further, Trump's v Biden's average weekly Covid deaths in office. You will find, Biden is delivering greater numbers but I thought Biden and the Lefties had all the answers!!! It would appear Biden et. al. were full of shit.
Click to expand...

Obviously logic and reason aren't you're thing.  Since those are what I operate on I'm afraid we need aren't going to be able to have a worthwhile discussion.

You have a nice day now, y'hear.


----------



## danielpalos

Captain Caveman said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Captain Caveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> Something must be done about the recent supreme court appointments.  They cannot be allowed to keep murdering people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Biden is sure killing thousands of Americans with Covid. How and his idiot followers claimed to have all the answers but he's implemented fuck all and the cases are accelerating. What a right fucking moron to appoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually cases are dropping.
> 
> Also, since it takes weeks to get sick and die from covid-19 most of the people who have died since the inauguration were already sick.
> 
> Thanks dOnald.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inauguration day 12:32pm ET 412,415 American Covid deaths.
> View attachment 456561
> 
> 
> Just simply deduct those from current deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer
> 
> 
> United States Coronavirus update with statistics and graphs: total and new cases, deaths per day, mortality and recovery rates, current active cases, recoveries, trends and timeline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.worldometers.info
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So at 9:24am GMT, Biden has killed 492,521- 412,145 = 80,376 Americans. I'm sure you can do the maths on infections and one step further, Trump's v Biden's average weekly Covid deaths in office. You will find, Biden is delivering greater numbers but I thought Biden and the Lefties had all the answers!!! It would appear Biden et. al. were full of shit.
Click to expand...

Recall red State governors who refuse to enforce mask mandates!


----------



## Captain Caveman

danielpalos said:


> Recall red State governors who refuse to enforce mask mandates


The problem with masks in the UK, they were brought into law second time around, but cases second time round are swamping all of those from the first wave. Reason? Masks do not prevent the spread of viruses.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Crepitus said:


> Obviously logic and reason aren't you're thing. Since those are what I operate on I'm afraid we need aren't going to be able to have a worthwhile discussion.
> 
> You have a nice day now, y'hear



I've given you clear numbers, you've given nothing, and you're taking the huff!! Laugh my tits off.


----------



## Crepitus

Captain Caveman said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously logic and reason aren't you're thing. Since those are what I operate on I'm afraid we need aren't going to be able to have a worthwhile discussion.
> 
> You have a nice day now, y'hear
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've given you clear numbers, you've given nothing, and you're taking the huff!! Laugh my tits off.
Click to expand...

No, you made up numbers, and I'm done with lying-ass tRumplings.  You will all be called what you are and called out on every lie and misrepresentation.

Deal with it.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Crepitus said:


> Captain Caveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously logic and reason aren't you're thing. Since those are what I operate on I'm afraid we need aren't going to be able to have a worthwhile discussion.
> 
> You have a nice day now, y'hear
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've given you clear numbers, you've given nothing, and you're taking the huff!! Laugh my tits off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you made up numbers, and I'm done with lying-ass tRumplings.  You will all be called what you are and called out on every lie and misrepresentation.
> 
> Deal with it.
Click to expand...

The website in my link gives you the infections and deaths. On paedo Biden's inauguration day, I took a screen shot of the figures. All you need to do, is keep clicking on the link for the up dated deaths, subtract those up to his inauguration day and time, and that will show you how many Americans Biden has killed with Covid.

From day one, the Lefties claimed Trump reacted too slow, didn't do enough and didn't advise you all how to lead your lives during a pandemic.

So now, over to you. Paedo Biden is now in and lefties have all the answers. So as you've been implementing the answers, a greater monthly number of Americans are dying.

So why have you fucked up?


----------



## danielpalos

Captain Caveman said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Recall red State governors who refuse to enforce mask mandates
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with masks in the UK, they were brought into law second time around, but cases second time round are swamping all of those from the first wave. Reason? Masks do not prevent the spread of viruses.
Click to expand...

In the US, we have a problem with some people (usually right wingers) who allege the pandemic is a hoax and refuse to wear masks and even attend superspreader events which make it seem like masks are not very effective in States seeing a rise in cases due to the pandemic. 

In the past, the 1918 pandemic second and third waves were worse than the first wave.


----------



## Markd

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.
> How does blocking government overreach open the door for religious extremism  this country was formed because of taxation without representation


----------



## Markd

danielpalos said:


> Captain Caveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Recall red State governors who refuse to enforce mask mandates
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with masks in the UK, they were brought into law second time around, but cases second time round are swamping all of those from the first wave. Reason? Masks do not prevent the spread of viruses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the US, we have a problem with some people (usually right wingers) who allege the pandemic is a hoax and refuse to wear masks and even attend superspreader events which make it seem like masks are not very effective in States seeing a rise in cases due to the pandemic.
> 
> In the past, the 1918 pandemic second and third waves were worse than the first wave.
Click to expand...

No studies show masks gelp anyone supporting this is either fear crazed or has another agenda


----------



## Markd

There are no studies supporting these masks ! Lots of studies showing they do not help! 
The death rate ,even with the exaggerated numbers is still comparable to sars or influenza a or b  ! Wearing  everyone s immune systems wearing mask toxicifying their blood by breathing in their own exhaust, is the point of masking


----------



## danielpalos

Markd said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Captain Caveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Recall red State governors who refuse to enforce mask mandates
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with masks in the UK, they were brought into law second time around, but cases second time round are swamping all of those from the first wave. Reason? Masks do not prevent the spread of viruses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the US, we have a problem with some people (usually right wingers) who allege the pandemic is a hoax and refuse to wear masks and even attend superspreader events which make it seem like masks are not very effective in States seeing a rise in cases due to the pandemic.
> 
> In the past, the 1918 pandemic second and third waves were worse than the first wave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No studies show masks gelp anyone supporting this is either fear crazed or has another agenda
Click to expand...

Right wingers typing on the Internet.  How can the left tell right wingers are lying?  Their lips are moving or they type on the Internet.  

I posted links to studies that indicate you are wrong, like usual for the right wing.


----------



## Markd

Jarlaxle said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're stupid.  When they attend an activity with close contact and no mask they are putting themselves, their friends, and their families at risk.  For NO VIABLE REASON.  It's sheer stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a greater chance of dying because I decided to ride my motorcycle than I do from COVID.
Click to expand...


----------



## Markd

If you want to mask effectively you need a fitted rubber mask with gas rated cartridges and goggles since it is much more likely you will contract a virus or bacteria via the eye than your nose anyway . Those paper and cloth masks can not and do not stop dust particles let  alone micro cells  . Get your head out if the sand ! The swine flu did not get stronger with each cycle virus  get weaker. And or our immunity gets stronger with each cycle .


----------



## danielpalos

If we don't need masks for a pandemic, we don't need our artificial wars on crime, drugs, and terror either.  Be brave right wingers!  Abolish our useless and alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror that y'all don't want to pay for with wartime tax rates anyway.


----------



## MadChemist

OldLady said:


> With any luck at all, 99.9% of ministers in these critical areas will keep their doors closed and worship on line in order to keep their parishioners safe until the case #'s come down and public health officials give the all clear.  Many outbreaks have been tied to church services all over the country.  I agree with Kagan on this, all the way.  Let's hope it doesn't lead to a slippery slope.
> 
> _Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer, dissented from this order in a blunt opinion highlighting the possibility that her colleagues’ decision will kill people. “Justices of this Court are not scientists,” Kagan began. “Nor do we know much about public health policy. Yet today the Court displaces the judgments of experts about how to respond to a raging pandemic. … That mandate defies our caselaw, exceeds our judicial role, and risks worsening the pandemic.” She pointed out that, contrary to the court’s belief, California has not actually treated churches less favorably than secular businesses and assemblies: Political meetings, lectures, and plays are also banned, she wrote—and these “secular gatherings,” like religious worship, “are constitutionally protected” by the First Amendment. The court simply created “a special exception for worship services.”
> 
> “To state the obvious, judges do not know what scientists and public health experts do,” Kagan explained. “So it is alarming that the Court second-guesses the judgments of expert officials, and displaces their conclusions with its own. In the worst public health crisis in a century, this foray into armchair epidemiology cannot end well.”_



The court does not make decisions based on what might or might not kill people.  Neither do they appeal to science.

They rule on the constitutionality of a law.

Period.


----------



## MadChemist

danielpalos said:


> If we don't need masks for a pandemic, we don't need our artificial wars on crime, drugs, and terror either.  Be brave right wingers!  Abolish our useless and alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror that y'all don't want to pay for with wartime tax rates anyway.



Start a thread on this.


----------



## OldLady

MadChemist said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> With any luck at all, 99.9% of ministers in these critical areas will keep their doors closed and worship on line in order to keep their parishioners safe until the case #'s come down and public health officials give the all clear.  Many outbreaks have been tied to church services all over the country.  I agree with Kagan on this, all the way.  Let's hope it doesn't lead to a slippery slope.
> 
> _Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer, dissented from this order in a blunt opinion highlighting the possibility that her colleagues’ decision will kill people. “Justices of this Court are not scientists,” Kagan began. “Nor do we know much about public health policy. Yet today the Court displaces the judgments of experts about how to respond to a raging pandemic. … That mandate defies our caselaw, exceeds our judicial role, and risks worsening the pandemic.” She pointed out that, contrary to the court’s belief, California has not actually treated churches less favorably than secular businesses and assemblies: Political meetings, lectures, and plays are also banned, she wrote—and these “secular gatherings,” like religious worship, “are constitutionally protected” by the First Amendment. The court simply created “a special exception for worship services.”
> 
> “To state the obvious, judges do not know what scientists and public health experts do,” Kagan explained. “So it is alarming that the Court second-guesses the judgments of expert officials, and displaces their conclusions with its own. In the worst public health crisis in a century, this foray into armchair epidemiology cannot end well.”_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The court does not make decisions based on what might or might not kill people.  Neither do they appeal to science.
> 
> They rule on the constitutionality of a law.
> 
> Period.
Click to expand...

The Courts have always referred to the seriousness of this public health emergency and respected the state' right to take steps to protect the public.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

OldLady said:


> The Courts have always referred to the seriousness of this public health emergency and respected the state' right to take steps to protect the public.



  The states have no right whatsoever to violate the rights that the Constitution explicitly affirms on behalf of the people.  This includes the freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly affirmed in the First Amendment.

  And making up a fake crisis, based on a hyperbolized flu bug, does not change this in the least.


----------



## danielpalos

Bob Blaylock said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Courts have always referred to the seriousness of this public health emergency and respected the state' right to take steps to protect the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The states have no right whatsoever to violate the rights that the Constitution explicitly affirms on behalf of the people.  This includes the freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly affirmed in the First Amendment.
> 
> And making up a fake crisis, based on a hyperbolized flu bug, does not change this in the least.
Click to expand...

Your fake news and alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are worse.  Why such "Big Chickens" for something even more hyperbolic than the pandemic.


----------



## BlackSand

OldLady said:


> The Courts have always referred to the seriousness of this public health emergency and respected the state' right to take steps to protect the public.



No ... It's not the Supreme Court's job to legislate nor govern, and only to determine the Constitutionality of the law.

.


----------



## MadChemist

OldLady said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> With any luck at all, 99.9% of ministers in these critical areas will keep their doors closed and worship on line in order to keep their parishioners safe until the case #'s come down and public health officials give the all clear.  Many outbreaks have been tied to church services all over the country.  I agree with Kagan on this, all the way.  Let's hope it doesn't lead to a slippery slope.
> 
> _Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer, dissented from this order in a blunt opinion highlighting the possibility that her colleagues’ decision will kill people. “Justices of this Court are not scientists,” Kagan began. “Nor do we know much about public health policy. Yet today the Court displaces the judgments of experts about how to respond to a raging pandemic. … That mandate defies our caselaw, exceeds our judicial role, and risks worsening the pandemic.” She pointed out that, contrary to the court’s belief, California has not actually treated churches less favorably than secular businesses and assemblies: Political meetings, lectures, and plays are also banned, she wrote—and these “secular gatherings,” like religious worship, “are constitutionally protected” by the First Amendment. The court simply created “a special exception for worship services.”
> 
> “To state the obvious, judges do not know what scientists and public health experts do,” Kagan explained. “So it is alarming that the Court second-guesses the judgments of expert officials, and displaces their conclusions with its own. In the worst public health crisis in a century, this foray into armchair epidemiology cannot end well.”_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The court does not make decisions based on what might or might not kill people.  Neither do they appeal to science.
> 
> They rule on the constitutionality of a law.
> 
> Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Courts have always referred to the seriousness of this public health emergency and respected the state' right to take steps to protect the public.
Click to expand...


I see you forgot to attach examples of what you are referencing.

I suspect it might be left-wing courts (the nanny state).  And selective incorporation allows the court to tell CA to shove it when it comes to their efforts to infringe on the right to worship.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.


Who would have guessed a Constitutional ruling based on the protection of the first amendment would be considered an activist ruling?


----------



## MadChemist

danielpalos said:


> If we don't need masks for a pandemic, we don't need our artificial wars on crime, drugs, and terror either.  Be brave right wingers!  Abolish our useless and alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror that y'all don't want to pay for with wartime tax rates anyway.



Say what ????


----------



## Desperado

MadChemist said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> With any luck at all, 99.9% of ministers in these critical areas will keep their doors closed and worship on line in order to keep their parishioners safe until the case #'s come down and public health officials give the all clear.  Many outbreaks have been tied to church services all over the country.  I agree with Kagan on this, all the way.  Let's hope it doesn't lead to a slippery slope.
> 
> _Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer, dissented from this order in a blunt opinion highlighting the possibility that her colleagues’ decision will kill people. “Justices of this Court are not scientists,” Kagan began. “Nor do we know much about public health policy. Yet today the Court displaces the judgments of experts about how to respond to a raging pandemic. … That mandate defies our caselaw, exceeds our judicial role, and risks worsening the pandemic.” She pointed out that, contrary to the court’s belief, California has not actually treated churches less favorably than secular businesses and assemblies: Political meetings, lectures, and plays are also banned, she wrote—and these “secular gatherings,” like religious worship, “are constitutionally protected” by the First Amendment. The court simply created “a special exception for worship services.”
> 
> “To state the obvious, judges do not know what scientists and public health experts do,” Kagan explained. “So it is alarming that the Court second-guesses the judgments of expert officials, and displaces their conclusions with its own. In the worst public health crisis in a century, this foray into armchair epidemiology cannot end well.”_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The court does not make decisions based on what might or might not kill people.  Neither do they appeal to science.
> 
> They rule on the constitutionality of a law.
> 
> Period.
Click to expand...

If only they did that


----------



## OldLady

BlackSand said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Courts have always referred to the seriousness of this public health emergency and respected the state' right to take steps to protect the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No ... It's not the Supreme Court's job to legislate nor govern, and only to determine the Constitutionality of the law.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

No?  What in that statement was wrong?
When the Supreme Court rules a law unconstitutional, it does in fact interfere with legislation, in this case to keep the public safe in an emergency.  Religion should have no special privileges to meet and break public health laws; the virus doesn't know why you're together or how holy you are, only that it can spread to a new host.


----------



## justinacolmena

OldLady said:


> Religion should have no special privileges to meet and break public health laws;


Which is why universal infant circumcision (along with "access" to abortion) is so thoroughly required, mandated, enforced and compelled in such districts to the exclusion of all religion.


----------



## emilynghiem

MadChemist said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> With any luck at all, 99.9% of ministers in these critical areas will keep their doors closed and worship on line in order to keep their parishioners safe until the case #'s come down and public health officials give the all clear.  Many outbreaks have been tied to church services all over the country.  I agree with Kagan on this, all the way.  Let's hope it doesn't lead to a slippery slope.
> 
> _Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer, dissented from this order in a blunt opinion highlighting the possibility that her colleagues’ decision will kill people. “Justices of this Court are not scientists,” Kagan began. “Nor do we know much about public health policy. Yet today the Court displaces the judgments of experts about how to respond to a raging pandemic. … That mandate defies our caselaw, exceeds our judicial role, and risks worsening the pandemic.” She pointed out that, contrary to the court’s belief, California has not actually treated churches less favorably than secular businesses and assemblies: Political meetings, lectures, and plays are also banned, she wrote—and these “secular gatherings,” like religious worship, “are constitutionally protected” by the First Amendment. The court simply created “a special exception for worship services.”
> 
> “To state the obvious, judges do not know what scientists and public health experts do,” Kagan explained. “So it is alarming that the Court second-guesses the judgments of expert officials, and displaces their conclusions with its own. In the worst public health crisis in a century, this foray into armchair epidemiology cannot end well.”_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The court does not make decisions based on what might or might not kill people.  Neither do they appeal to science.
> 
> They rule on the constitutionality of a law.
> 
> Period.
Click to expand...

The Courts are SUPPOSED to do what you described, I agree.

But in cases like Terri Schiavo, it seems the Court made a faith based decision to go along with the legal husband's decision DESPITE lack of any written documents or proof of the legal wife's directives. And DESPITE that man having a clear conflict of interest with serving as legal guardian.

Since that could have gone either way due to lack of written proof, the Court should have abstained. And required the family resolve this "faith based" spiritual issue through counseling and conflict resolution in the most inclusive way possible.

That would have been more Constitutional than the Court making several faith based leaps: regarding the decision to recognize the husband (even though he already started another relationship or family with his next wife); to recognize the decisions as legal guardian (despite the conflicting interests and faith based decisions the Court had no business determining for families); and to allow termination by starvation based on faith without any written statement or proof that Terri Schaivo consented to DNR directives. 









						Schiavo's wishes recalled in records
					

It was a somber family gathering in the days after Michael Schiavo's grandmother died in 1988. Doctors had tried to revive the woman despite her written directive that she not be resuscitated.




					www.tampabay.com
				




It was worse than that, when the Court even approved restraining orders to prevent attempts to transfer the patient to save her from being starved to death.

Sorry but this is one very difficult case, where you would have an equally difficult time convincing me the Court acted Constitutionally. Those decisions were either politically pressured, incompetent or negligent. The only thing that could justify making that decision is purely "God's will" that the Court should agree, not only to let her die, but starve to death while Court-ordered restraints barred anyone from saving or transferring her.

I will accept, of course, if it was God's will that the Court exceeded its authority because Schaivo was meant to die. But I will still argue the whole situation was unconstitutional how it was mishandled.
This was a spiritual conflict, which the family needed help to resolve to make a decision among themselves, instead of abusing the laws, Courts and govt to side with one person without proof of the person's beliefs, and force that on dissenting family members, all based on faith.

As OldLady  referred to regarding Govt being able to making decisions regarding emergencies with public health, in this example I cite the Court did side with the legal husband and medical assessments on "health issues" of brain damage being irreversible (I think the argument was turned into her "right to die" when there was no proof of her wishes or beliefs in either right to die or right to life. So the real battle was between the legal husband and her family and THEIR beliefs, not hers that were never proven by any documented testimony from her). So the Court was getting into the *content of the decision*, and not merely staying focused on whether the man or his decision had "Constitutional authority" over his legal wife without proof of her wishes.

MadChemist
I wish we had a more direct check on court and govt policies to keep them centered on Constitutional authority.
Until we set up a system for citizens to do this, such as by party precinct or electoral district, judges and lawyers are human and will project biases and inject their opinions. It would take all parties checking and balancing each other to compensate for these biases from both left and right. We should use this input to formulate better solutions.

That way, people make more of these decisions directly ourselves. And quit handing over jurisdiction to govt where it doesn't belong. And then fight and protest when govt produces policies we don't agree with!

If we want laws enforced correctly, we need to share responsibility for our part in enforcing them as well!

Thanks MadChemist


----------



## emilynghiem

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.


I think this means we either need to settle these disputes directly ourselves, not abuse govt to issue mandates for us.

Or agree to separate and democratize districts if we cannot agree statewide or nationwide on policy. 

The advantage to allowing more districts to reorganize as self governing, if they can contain themselves and sustain their own medical services proportional to their population, such as through cooperative health care associations, not only can districts democratically elect their own policies, but in case of a major outbreak, districts would be able to shutdown minimal areas as necessary instead of shutting down the entire state or nation.

Democratizing medical care per district population to be self sustaining
would allow both equal choice of policies to fund and follow, and set up a safer system for containing future outbreaks or crisis emergencies without shutting everything down and risking the state or national economy.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

OldLady said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Courts have always referred to the seriousness of this public health emergency and respected the state' right to take steps to protect the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No ... It's not the Supreme Court's job to legislate nor govern, and only to determine the Constitutionality of the law.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No?  What in that statement was wrong?
> When the Supreme Court rules a law unconstitutional, it does in fact interfere with legislation, in this case to keep the public safe in an emergency.  Religion should have no special privileges to meet and break public health laws; the virus doesn't know why you're together or how holy you are, only that it can spread to a new host.
Click to expand...

Legislation that is unconstitutional is illegal. Protecting the public from illegal legislation is the primary job of the Supreme Court. 


OldLady said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> With any luck at all, 99.9% of ministers in these critical areas will keep their doors closed and worship on line in order to keep their parishioners safe until the case #'s come down and public health officials give the all clear.  Many outbreaks have been tied to church services all over the country.  I agree with Kagan on this, all the way.  Let's hope it doesn't lead to a slippery slope.
> 
> _Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer, dissented from this order in a blunt opinion highlighting the possibility that her colleagues’ decision will kill people. “Justices of this Court are not scientists,” Kagan began. “Nor do we know much about public health policy. Yet today the Court displaces the judgments of experts about how to respond to a raging pandemic. … That mandate defies our caselaw, exceeds our judicial role, and risks worsening the pandemic.” She pointed out that, contrary to the court’s belief, California has not actually treated churches less favorably than secular businesses and assemblies: Political meetings, lectures, and plays are also banned, she wrote—and these “secular gatherings,” like religious worship, “are constitutionally protected” by the First Amendment. The court simply created “a special exception for worship services.”
> 
> “To state the obvious, judges do not know what scientists and public health experts do,” Kagan explained. “So it is alarming that the Court second-guesses the judgments of expert officials, and displaces their conclusions with its own. In the worst public health crisis in a century, this foray into armchair epidemiology cannot end well.”_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The court does not make decisions based on what might or might not kill people.  Neither do they appeal to science.
> 
> They rule on the constitutionality of a law.
> 
> Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Courts have always referred to the seriousness of this public health emergency and respected the state' right to take steps to protect the public.
Click to expand...

"Emergencies" don't last a year. The States don't have the right to over-rule the Constitutional rights of the People for any reason. Nor have any of the measures being yapped about been shown to actually protect anyone. If they were actually effective they would have worked long sense. Some folks seem determined to throw out the baby with the bath water.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

9thIDdoc said:


> "Emergencies" don't last a year. The States don't have the right to over-rule the Constitutional rights of the People for any reason. *Nor have any of the measures being yapped about been shown to actually protect anyone.*



  They were never about protecting anyone.  From the beginning, they were never about anything other than an excuse for criminals who infest positions of power to seize and abuse power, to their own gain, and to the detriment of those whom they are supposed to be serving.  It is about our public servants trying to be our masters.


----------



## Esdraelon

skews13 said:


> Late on Friday night, the Supreme Court blocked California’s public health ban on indoor religious services in a splintered 6–3 decision that augurs a major shift in the law of religious liberty. Justice Elena Kagan’s extraordinary dissent accused her conservative colleagues of endangering lives by overruling public health officials and potentially facilitating the spread of COVID-19. But the court’s new conservative majority ignored her warning—and, in the process, gave itself new powers to strike down alleged burdens on religious freedom. The Supreme Court effectively tossed out decades of case law in a late-night emergency order, unsettling precedent that states have relied upon to craft COVID restrictions. As Kagan sharply noted, Friday’s order “injects uncertainty into an area where uncertainty has human costs.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kagan Warns the Supreme Court’s New COVID Decision May Kill People
> 
> 
> 
> Keep it up religious nut jobs. You're going to be our best reason to expand the court. And you can bet the farm on it. The court will be expanded to stop religious extremism. The most fundamental reason America was created to begin with.


Just curious, besides being anti-Christian, is there ANY step a Democrat government might take that you'd consider too burdensome as long as they tell you it'd be for "your own good"?  Only a blind partisan can refuse to look at what overreaching precedents can do to our freedoms.  
It's pretty easy to push Christians around on the religious issue.  When your heroes in DC try that with the guns...not so much...


----------



## Faun

airplanemechanic said:


> The freedom of religion clause in the constitution doesn't have an asterisk by it saying "except during a pandemic".
> 
> The court finally got something right.


So someone can legally threaten to kill you since there's also no such asterisk on freedom of speech.


----------

