Supreme Court rules in favor of California church restrictions
We were starting to see a string of victories in the courts over restrictions put in place by the States during the COVID-19 pandemic. I say “were” because the Supreme Court ended the streak when John Roberts sided with the liberals to rule in favor of California’s restrictions on church services. Here is more:
The Supreme Court late Friday rejected a California church’s challenge of the state’s new pandemic-related rules on worship services, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s liberals in the 5-to-4 vote.
Roberts wrote that state officials such as California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) had leeway to impose restrictions to prevent the spread of coronavirus, and had not singled out places of worship for unfair treatment.
“The notion that it is ‘indisputably clear’ that the government’s limitations are unconstitutional seems quite improbable,” Roberts wrote.
And there you have it, apparently because all of our Constitutional rights are being stepped on and violated equally then stopping Americans from attending worship services is okay according to John Roberts.
This is some of what Brett Kavanaugh had to say in his dissent:
“California’s latest safety guidelines discriminate against places of worship and in favor of comparable secular businesses,” wrote Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. “Such discrimination violates the First Amendment.”
That seems fairly obvious to me, especially considering the churches would have been following the same exact protocols other places which are allowed to be open are following, but what do I know?
So the question I have at this point is, what is to stop these States from continuing to extend these emergency declarations into perpetuity and permanently stomping on our rights if we cannot trust the Supreme Court to put an end to this? If you do not think this is possible remember we have already seen the emergency declarations which were only supposed to be for two weeks extended into two months and beyond. California, Ohio, Oregon, and there could be other States, have already extended the emergency declarations into July and I suspect it will be even longer.
I suspect this is only the beginning and we do not have the Supreme Court to back us up…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 
Elections have consequences. In this particular case, Roberts, he is a legacy of the progressive Bush cabal and will continue to poison our legal system for decades. At the same time the VA is overwhelmed with the mistakes of the bush clan. Elections have consequences.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought Roberts was going to be the one good thing we got out of the Bush administration but we did not even get that.
LikeLike
While the outcome of this is troubling, it is not an affirmation of the California order. SCOTUS can reject cases for a lot of reasons many of which are based on how the legal arguments are made and not on the substance of the situation itself. An appeal to the court has to have a clear argument that points to specific aspects of law in order to be considered and adjudicated. To the lay person this can be frustrating. This issue will return to the court when a viable argument is made against the order that a higher court can cite precedent and rule on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for that information!
LikeLike
It’s all about setting the precedent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep, and it all will flow out from this decision.
LikeLike
To my knowledge, there has never been a single Dem appointment where the appointee moved to the left. However, at least half the Rep. appointees have shifted to the left once appointed. Something is way wrong here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is an interesting observation. Either these people were hiding who they really are or the Republicans are not who they claim they are, or it is some combination in between. Of course the left will say it is because they are right and eventually these people come to realize it.
LikeLike