It Has Started: Activist Court Rewrites Law

[Markd]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

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]

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.

 

[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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

If only they did that

 

[OldLady]

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.

.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.