You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Government
White House Slams SCOTUS Decision Putting Nevada Entertainment Ahead Of Churches
2020-07-26
[Zero Hedge] A divided Supreme Court on Friday evening rejected a request by a rural Nevada church to lift a 50-person cap on religious services.

In a 5-4 ruling, the justices denied the request from the Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley, a Christian church located outside the state's capital, Carson City, to be held to the same COVID-19 restrictions that allow bars, casinos, gyms, and restaurants to operate at 50% of capacity.

Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley said the attendance cap on religious services was an unconstitutional violation of its First Amendment right to express region freely. It emphasized the willingness to comply with social distancing rules and also asked to be treated like everyone else.

Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, joined the court's four liberal justices in refusing the church's request without explanation. The majority did not elaborate on their decision.

In a strongly worded dissent accompanied by Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Samuel Alito wrote it was no surprise that "Nevada would discriminate in favor of the powerful gaming industry and its employees, ...but this Court's willingness to allow such discrimination is disappointing."

"We have a duty to defend the Constitution, and even a public health emergency does not absolve us of that responsibility, Alito wrote.

He continued, "For months now, States and their subdivisions have responded to the pandemic by imposing unprecedented restrictions on personal liberty, including the free exercise of religion."

Alito added Washington does not have the ability "to disregard the Constitution for as long as the medical problem persists."

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote,

"In Nevada, it seems, it is better to be in entertainment than religion. Maybe that is nothing new. But the First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion."

David Cortman, senior counsel for Georgia-based Alliance Defending Freedom representing the church, told AP News that "the government treats churches worse than casinos, gyms, and indoor amusement parks in its COVID-19 response, it clearly violates the Constitution," adding that he was very disappointed in the ruling....
[So, how's the conservative John Roberts working out?]
Posted by:Clem

#22  Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, joined the court's four liberal justices

And god king of the fisa fraud judges. Tar and feathers would be appropriate. Mind you our pissy republicants don't have the balls to impeach him.
Posted by: Woodrow   2020-07-26 16:30  

#21  They say justice should be blind, well, it is.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2020-07-26 15:24  

#20  and yes, I've Smokeyed myself. With reason
Posted by: Frank G   2020-07-26 13:18  

#19  The other 7% of the time it's something I wrote.
Posted by: gorb   2020-07-26 12:52  

#18  Regarding Freedom of Speech and intolerance, yesterday I entered a comment regarding the judgement of one or two of the newer mods and the comment was heavily censored undoubtably by the party in question.

Shit like that's happened to me over the years; the rational sort would ask the following question first - did I just post something that makes me look like an irrational asshole? That answer has a 93% chance of being yes.
Posted by: Raj   2020-07-26 10:30  

#17  Should Trump win, the next supreme court nomination process, after RBG books her River Styx cruise, will make Kavanaugh's look like a Sunday social.
Posted by: Warthog   2020-07-26 10:08  

#16  Even though Roberts is a Grade A scoundrel, that four other justices think the same is really something else.
Posted by: Clem   2020-07-26 08:57  

#15  Bingo on Sunday after a brief service.
Posted by: Airandee   2020-07-26 08:38  

#14  it seems the solution would be to install a bar behind the pulpit
Posted by: Bob Grorong1136   2020-07-26 08:11  

#13  Hopefully I'm right. I'd hate to see Rex with one end of a periwinkle wand sticking out of each ear. :-)
Posted by: gorb   2020-07-26 03:24  

#12   Hopefully in regard to SCOTUS not explaining their decision?

Oh. It sounds like I misinterpreted Rex Mundi’s target, and owe him an apology for snapping at him. Thank you for pointing that out, gorb.
Posted by: trailing wife   2020-07-26 03:14  

#11   Will do if I can moderate all Portuguese comments

I don’t think we’ve had any in Portuguese, either Portugal or Brazil, but if, while we wait, you could feed us War on Terror articles in English from those countries, that would be marvelous. We’ve been neglecting Europe since I had to give it up the round-ups as too much.
Posted by: trailing wife   2020-07-26 03:11  

#10  @5 Being ruled over includes not being owed an explanation. Know your place.

Hopefully in regard to SCOTUS not explaining their decision?
Posted by: gorb   2020-07-26 03:02  

#9  "Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative,

More often than not when the decision matters less.
Posted by: gorb   2020-07-26 03:01  

#8  ^ Will do if I can moderate all Portuguese comments when my online language course has been completed.
Posted by: Ebbomoger Speaking for Boskone4589   2020-07-26 02:24  

#7   Being ruled over includes not being owed an explanation. Know your place.

Fuck that shit, Rex Mundi. I explained above. and have done so before. You know me and all the other moderators — we were all here as commenters for years before Fred asked us to become moderators. You want to be a moderator? Just say — we’ll happily make use of you, and divide the workload.
Posted by: trailing wife   2020-07-26 01:45  

#6  Know your place.(#5) (What is my place???)

Are you that anonymous commenter who only seems to come here to complain about the moderators(#4) After informative comments were censored for no reason, there was no longer a logical reason to reason.
Posted by: Ebbomoger Speaking for Boskone4589   2020-07-26 01:33  

#5  Being ruled over includes not being owed an explanation. Know your place.
Posted by: Rex Mundi   2020-07-26 01:20  

#4  Are you that anonymous commenter who only seems to come here to complain about the moderators, Ebbomoger Speaking for Boskone4589? I’m afraid that, in the interest of not having long, boring discussions every time, we accept that our moderators are imperfect — nonetheless, like sports referees their calls are final, even when it could be argued that they were wrong.

But note that we hold ourselves to the same standard of behaviour — we’ve each at some point found it necessary, on reflection, to spam cop or delete one of our own comments as crossing the line.

That said, if you are willing to add your judgement to ours, please poke your head into the O Club and drop me a note with your contact information — goodness knows we could use help collecting articles from some of the regions that haven’t been getting proper attention recently, and I’ll be happy to start your training.
Posted by: trailing wife   2020-07-26 01:19  

#3  Wow, if not from an anon user this might be worth some discussion.
Posted by: Skidmark   2020-07-26 00:21  

#2  "Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, joined the court's four liberal justices in refusing the church's request without explanation. The majority did not elaborate on their decision."

Why, tough to defend your decision? Sickening.
Posted by: Clem   2020-07-26 00:20  

#1  Regarding Freedom of Speech and intolerance, yesterday I entered a comment regarding the judgement of one or two of the newer mods and the comment was heavily censored undoubtably by the party in question.

Question: Is the new policy here that no mod can be questioned or critiqued is no longer allowed? If so, how disgraceful and the site has lost its way, and is way over due for house cleaning.
Posted by: Ebbomoger Speaking for Boskone4589   2020-07-26 00:17  

00:00