That this is even considered a close, controversial opinion shows just how far down the hole of losing our liberties we’ve fallen.
The Supreme Court struck down California’s in person church gathering ban late last night, and it has the left in an absolute tizzy. The court found the ban to be discriminatory and arbitrary, while using a former case as precedent to say that the government can not give an exemption to a secular field and not apply it to religious institutions. That’s in relation to Gov. Gavin Newsom allowing things like celebrity book signings and movie production to happen while he claimed going to church was too dangerous.
Here’s some of the tears flowing. Enjoy it.
These are Amy Coney Barrett’s first published words as a justice.
Joined by Kavanaugh, she took the “moderate” position by endorsing all of Gorsuch’s (quite extreme) attacks of the California COVID restrictions, minus the singing ban. https://t.co/A6i2HsEhK2 pic.twitter.com/ffOkyGtXlC
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) February 6, 2021
Five justices endorsed the “most favored nation” theory of free exercise—that the presence of ANY secular exemption to a law triggers strict scrutiny when that law is applied to religious exercise. This is basically the end of Employment Division v. Smith.https://t.co/IEQd9IWM4a
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) February 6, 2021
Here’s another hot take that will make you bring the palm of your hand to your face.
A fundamental divide: conservative judges are more likely to defer to legislators; liberal judges to experts. https://t.co/cKv59zlD5E
— Jason Willick (@jawillick) February 6, 2021
Here’s my response to that.
Yes, conservative judges do defer to the protective confines of the constitution and not the arbitrary and unaccountable edicts of the “experts.” Every atrocity in human history has had an “expert” standing beside leadership endorsing the action about to be taken. The idea that we should hand over our governance to “experts,” making them preeminent to the actual Constitution is an idea so insane that it makes me think a national break-up might actually be a good idea. How does a country even survive with so many of its citizens holding such a position?
But really, what does the fact that all the liberal judges on the court agreed with the ban say? I think it says that we are a few Supreme Court appointments by a Democrat away from having absolutely no liberty at all. If a state can simply decide you can’t go to church, then what is left, exactly? Because they can dang sure declare an “emergency” and arbitrarily decide you don’t get to have guns either. They can certainly suppress speech under that standard for the greater good as well.
It may sound overwrought, but it’s scary how close we are to quite literally living in a nation where the Constitution and individual rights don’t matter at all. Had Donald Trump not been president, we literally would have had a situation last night where the Supreme Court ruled that state’s can arbitrarily, hiding behind unelected bureaucrats, decide to ban people from going to church.
For every Never Trumper out there who didn’t think Trump’s term was worth it, had he not been elected, SCOTUS would have decided last night that a state can just stop people from going to church while allowing celebrity book signings. Your decorum wasn’t gonna save you. https://t.co/YSStLCWMnS
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) February 6, 2021
There are a lot of Republicans obsessed with decorum and palace intrigue that probably spend some time pondering that possibility.
Disclaimer – The information provided by Zoxx News is published and owned by their respected owners. All content posted from third parties are cited and linked back to.
Discussion about this post