Cuomo, Sheriffs, and Dictators

[Thoughtful Monk]

Today I read an article that the Supreme Court ruled that one of Governor Saint Cuomo the Great's executive orders against churches was unconstitutional. However since the rules the church was under had changed since the case was filed, the court decision had no real effect. One of the justices commented that as long as the governor keeps changing the rules fast enough, churches probably won't get relief from the courts.

Here go our civil liberties under a barrage of rapidly changing executive orders.

Link to article: https://www.whec.com/health/supreme-...35135/?cat=565

[rogue06]

Not totally unlike the Patriot Act and associated "anti-terrorism" policies.

Until very recently it seemed that nearly every exception to various constitutional rights came from the War on Drugs.

[Starlight]

Today I read an article that the Supreme Court ruled that one of Governor Saint Cuomo the Great's executive orders against churches was unconstitutional.

If one was feeling uncharitable, one could describe the decision as SCOTUS ordering the deaths of religious people.

"Everyone else can be protected from the pandemic, but you religious people are at liberty... to die."

[casaba]

I've been thinking when we get enough time past COVID that we can look back, one thing we'll discover is how much civil liberties were eroded.

Someday we'll hear someone say, "Well we did it under COVID so we can do under this situation."

My feelings swing a bit in the other direction. I feel that when we get enough time past COVID that we can look back, one thing we'll discover is that the most effective protections for the population during the epidemic were significantly hampered by claims of personal liberty. In hindsight, we will be able to compare how different states fared, as well as other countries, and I fear that regions that limited civil liberties the least will be the regions the hardest hit.

Your fear that civil liberties have been permanently eroded, or that responses to later crises will use COVID as precedent, while possible seems unlikely to me now. This is a once in a century event. I guess time will tell which of these futures awaits us.

[NorrinRadd]

I am firmly in the "Yes, the Bill of Rights IS a suicide pact" camp. I don't care if they find conclusive proof that every gathering at church, synagogue, mosque, whatever is a "super-spreader" event, I want no interference from any government at National, State, county, or local level.

And no, it is not good enough for me if they are simply treated no worse than secular gatherings. Rights that are *explicitly* guaranteed by the Constitution should get preferential treatment.

[Starlight]

I am firmly in the "Yes, the Bill of Rights IS a suicide pact" camp... I want no interference from any government at National, State, county, or local level.

This pandemic has interestingly revealed the anti-life death-cultists.

And clearly revealed those of us who are pro-life.

[rogue06]

This pandemic has interestingly revealed the anti-life death-cultists.

And clearly revealed those of us who are pro-life.

Unless you are under the age of one or so.

[NorrinRadd]

This pandemic has interestingly revealed the anti-life death-cultists.

And clearly revealed those of us who are pro-life.

Aren't you one of the ones who has defended literal infanticide? Such reprobates barely deserve to be treated as humans, let alone be regarded as "pro-life."

Meanwhile, most of us who identify as "Pro-Life" have a specific meaning in mind, just as do those who identify as "Pro-Choice." While there certainly are some who are very literal and "consistent" in their use of the term, most of us mean we are particularly "pro" those human lives who are most defenseless and innocent, and we are particularly "anti" actions that specifically target them for harm.

[DesertBerean]

Our sheriffs here in Cali have pretty much either said nothing or said "Sorry Governer, we're too busy re-arresting all the people let out of prison or out on no-bail. YOUR ideas, Governor".

[rogue06]

Today I read an article that the Supreme Court ruled that one of Governor Saint Cuomo the Great's executive orders against churches was unconstitutional. However since the rules the church was under had changed since the case was filed, the court decision had no real effect. One of the justices commented that as long as the governor keeps changing the rules fast enough, churches probably won't get relief from the courts.

Here go our civil liberties under a barrage of rapidly changing executive orders.

Link to article: https://www.whec.com/health/supreme-...35135/?cat=565

Source: Supreme Court blocks NY from enforcing Covid limits on churches

The court said the restrictions violate religious freedom and are not neutral because they “single out houses of worship."

The U.S. Supreme Court issued an injunction late Wednesday blocking New York’s governor from enforcing 10- and 25-person occupancy limits on religious institutions, granting a request from the Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel.

The state had told the court there was no need to act because the restrictions, which were adopted as a way to try to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, had recently been dialed back.

The court apparently divided 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissenting.

In an unsigned majority opinion, the court said the restrictions would violate religious freedom and are not neutral because they “single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment.”

While religious institutions were affected, businesses categorized as essential could admit as many people as they wish, the court said, and the list of such businesses included acupuncture facilities and others the court said were not essential.

The court said there’s no evidence that the organizations that brought the lawsuit have contributed to the spread of Covid-19.

In his dissent, Roberts said he saw no need to take this action, because the state has revised the designations of the affected areas, and none of the houses of worship that sought relief now face numerical restrictions and can hold services up to 50 percent capacity.

Breyer said if the state seeks to reimpose the limits, the plaintiffs can come back to the court. Sotomayor and Kagan said granting the injunction “will only exacerbate the nation’s suffering.”



Source

© Copyright Original Source

[rogue06]

governor-cuomo-calls-sheriffs-wont-enforce-thanksgiving-restrictions-dictators-dumbass-government.jpeg

[Thoughtful Monk]

My feelings swing a bit in the other direction. I feel that when we get enough time past COVID that we can look back, one thing we'll discover is that the most effective protections for the population during the epidemic were significantly hampered by claims of personal liberty. In hindsight, we will be able to compare how different states fared, as well as other countries, and I fear that regions that limited civil liberties the least will be the regions the hardest hit.

Your fear that civil liberties have been permanently eroded, or that responses to later crises will use COVID as precedent, while possible seems unlikely to me now. This is a once in a century event. I guess time will tell which of these futures awaits us.

I think there's going to be a debate over how effective the protections were. If you use the simplest measure of number of cases / population, it will probably be in the regions that most restricted civil liberties. However I think we'll also find that restrictions were placed that were unnecessary or too slow to come on or come off. For example, the area I'm in just went from yellow to orange. However it took about 3 days after knowing this before the orange went into effect. If Covid is so serious, why wasn't it changed immediately? Speaking at the state level, I feel that has effective Governor Cuomo may have been, his response will come under criticism for being too slow even now that we're about 9 months into the pandemic. And this doesn't start touching other issues like suicides, addiction, relationship abuse are up. Also, we have student who have essentially lost a year of schooling and we'll feel that impact for the next 70 to 100 years. Personally, I think some of the results will show our social media and technology solutions for this pandemic were woefully inadequate.

Once in a century events don't matter - they're just an excuse to make the change. 9/11 was a once in a century terrorism event and we are still living under increase government surveillance of our lives and finances. They haven't gone away even though the need for them has apparently diminished. I think they've been cut back a little bit but they're essentially still there. So watch, a lot of things were put in place to manage the pandemic that won't go away when the pandemic is over. The government is learning how manage big threats to restrict our lives. I'm little skeptical on how effective it will be, but watch our for Al Gore as Climate Change Czar to push similar restrictions to manage the global threat of climate warming.

[myth]

that is a curiosity I have about the novel coronavirus. Everything being done for coronavirus is what libtards want to do to restrict us in all activities. I think this virus should be named the libtardovirus

I think there's an interesting liberal/conservative divide on the opinion of coronavirus in general. One obvious reason is that conservatives are concentrated in rural areas - which have not been hit as hard by coronavirus. Whereas liberals are concentrated in urban areas that have been more severely affected. Another is that (as much as it pain me to say this), according to several studies I've seen -- conservatives are generally more skeptical of the opinions of scientists than liberals. Additionally, conservatives also tend to be more focused on the state of the economy than liberals (my observation there).

[mikewhitney]

I think there's an interesting liberal/conservative divide on the opinion of coronavirus in general. One obvious reason is that conservatives are concentrated in rural areas - which have not been hit as hard by coronavirus. Whereas liberals are concentrated in urban areas that have been more severely affected. Another is that (as much as it pain me to say this), according to several studies I've seen -- conservatives are generally more skeptical of the opinions of scientists than liberals. Additionally, conservatives also tend to be more focused on the state of the economy than liberals (my observation there).

that sounds backwards. I have been paying attention to scientists to get my understanding of the situation. A lot of people are sort of trusting a publicly hypothesized novel scientific consensus that never pans out. These novel science ideas are more myth than reality.

[myth]

that sounds backwards. I have been paying attention to scientists to get my understanding of the situation. A lot of people are sort of trusting a publicly hypothesized novel scientific consensus that never pans out. These novel science ideas are more myth than reality.

Which part is backwards? Conservatives not trusting science? I mean, you and I might be the exception. But I know people that flat out told me they trusted Trump's opinion on the coronavirus more than the PhD/MDs that study this stuff for a living. And, sadly, a ton of people I know seem to buy into that line of reasoning. So the studies might not be too far off. I think it's rooted in insecurity and/or distrust towards those with higher education credentials. Almost like an 'us versus them' mentality. I don't understand why that exists, but....apparently it does.