Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
Here is the complete text of the ruling:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1044_pok0.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1044_pok0.pdf
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Supreme Court, in 5-4 Decision, Rejects Church’s Challenge to Shutdown Order
- Thread starter Wandering Monk
- Start date
It's fortunate that we have the Chief Justice we do. The four extremist right wing members of the Court would tear down the separation of powers to "legislate from the bench" as they complained about when the court was a lot more liberal. Kavanaugh ignored the facts to overrule the state's even handed restrictions and would in fact cause the deaths of uncounted numbers.
The part of Robert's decision that I especially note:
Our Constitution principally entrusts “[t]he safety and the health of the people” to the politically accountable officials of the States “to guard and protect.” Ja-cobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 38 (1905). When those officials “undertake[] to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,” their latitude “must be especially broad.” Marshall v. United States, 414 U. S. 417, 427 (1974). Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an “unelected federal judiciary,” which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people.
The part of Robert's decision that I especially note:
Our Constitution principally entrusts “[t]he safety and the health of the people” to the politically accountable officials of the States “to guard and protect.” Ja-cobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 38 (1905). When those officials “undertake[] to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,” their latitude “must be especially broad.” Marshall v. United States, 414 U. S. 417, 427 (1974). Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an “unelected federal judiciary,” which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
I thought this was interesting because I have pointed out in other threads that Constitutional rights are subject to constraint to some here who think otherwise. I cited Jacobson as evidence that the Courts had ALREADY limited religious freedom. Some folks don't seem to understand this.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
I breathed a huge sigh of relief reading that. It's a much needed sign of sanity fron Washington.
Off subject, but I wonder....
So, if it is against your position it is because they are "extremist"? So, the only time they are not "extremist" is when they agree with your position?
Why even have a court of diverse viewpoints?
I should have written 'extreme'. For one thing they said they believed in stare decisis during their hearing but have done anything but that since.
Didn't they do that in the case of Separation of Church and State. no precedent? And right to abortion?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Those things do not put us at risk. If someone has an abortion, that will never have the potential to kill or make extremely ill the cashier where the woman who had her abortion gets groceries. Separating Church and State will never infect someone with a potentially fatal disease.
Ignoring the risks this virus presents and condemning hundreds of thousands to die an agonizing death is, in my opinion, very extreme.
I was talking about stare decisis. Just done by different Supreme Court Justices.
However, abortion is pretty deadly and has many potential side effects for the mother.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Abortion will NEVER kill someone who wasn't there. Gathering and congregating risks killing those who didn't go when those who didn't go must inevitably go to the store, pharmacy, or whatever essential business they have outside of home.
I don't know... it seems to me that when I felt our babies 6 months movement... it felt like someone was there!
Then again, there are those you can see that we know are there:
Women Are Dying From “Safe And Legal” Abortions
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
If you notice, I said it will never kill someone who wasn't there.
And, FYI, no medical procedure is without risk. Sometimes things happen and people unforeseeably die during very routine procedures.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Ideally, you'd want a judge to be a level-headed person who is able to see both sides and decide in best interpretation of the law. A wise judge would find a way so that most of their decisions would be called just by most of the public.
Justice Kavanaugh is not such a person. He was pushed to the position to be an advocate for the right wing positions, not for his level-headedness.
Maybe the process for appointing judges should be revised and require at last an 80% majority.
But that also could be said of Justice Ginsburg but on the other side
Who is to decide who is level headed and who is not?