In a very short opinion, Chief Justice Roberts concurred with the more “liberal” of the justices and upheld California’s Covid restrictions against a challenge under the Freedom Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Justice Kavanaugh penned the dissent, which was heavy with rhetoric, but not so much on the actual facts of the case. Both opinions were relatively short by Supreme Court measures, but it was an emergency injunction request, so there wasn’t a lot of time for briefing, etc.
The gist of the disagreement seemed to come down to a determination if churches are more like “lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time” or more like " grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods." Roberts thought the former. Kavanaugh kept trying to compare church with grocery stores.
My two favorite takeaways from this very brief case:
Roberts’ opinion relies heavily on the fact that the legislature and executive are in a better position to determine the necessary rules to protect citizens during a pandemic than the judiciary is. It shows, to me, that the conservative’s faction reliance on “judicial restraint” is mostly just lip-service. They’re more than willing to embrace “judicial activism” if it is for their constitutents.
Roberts’ last line is: “The notion that it is “indisputably clear” that the Government’s limitations are unconstitutional
seems quite improbable.” It’s a clear swipe at Kavanaugh’s dissenting opinion. I like that.
Claiming that churches are like grocery stores, in that people don’t congregate or stay in proximity to each other? What a peculiar objection. I mean, the set of people who go to a particular church is even called a “congregation”.
I could see an argument that the government doesn’t have the authority to regulate churches, or that, like grocery stores, churches are sufficiently important that they should remain open despite the risks. I’m not saying I necessarily agree with either of those arguments, but I can at least see them. But the argument that people don’t congregate in church just doesn’t make any sense at all.
While justice Roberts may be bucking the conservative majority here chances are very good that Roberts is saving many more conservative lives because of it.
These church congregations tend to be a conservative bunch.
The conspiracy theory side of myself says Roberts took one for the team on this one.
A lot of people are wondering why we can shop at Costco, but not attend church. Do you think your church is “essential”? Okay, if you’re willing to line up for an hour or more so you can get in to worship in a church that’s at most holding 10% of its normal capacity, your church can stay open. If you’re not willing to do this to attend church, but you will to buy food, what does that tell you about what constitutes an “essential service”?
That’s really the crux of it. Grocery stores and churches simply do not function in the same way, and so can’t be treated the same.
It’s interesting to note that I had several of my religious friends respond to this, agreeing with me. Their churches have been using things like Zoom meetings to maintain their congregation, which is another thing that distinguishes them; you can’t shop for groceries over Zoom. Would that more US Christians were like my friends.
Reading this dissent, it is clear that Kavanaugh is not a great thinker. How an activist moron like that can have a job for life at the highest level in this country is depressing. Standards are low for the Supreme Court, I guess.
Yeah, this. He didn’t even try to address the actual question, he just used his dissent to pander to the right wing religious idiots.
Which is pretty much what we expected from him.
At this point, for Americans, Job #1 is getting rid of Trump. Job #2 is getting rid of Kavanaugh. Jobs #3-200(?) are getting rid of every other judge that Trump has nominated.
Yes, yes, “Lifetime appointments” and all that. Doesn’t fucking matter. Make whatever changes you have to to get this asshole off the court. It’s that important.
Can’t quote the OP, Hamlet:
“Justice Kavanaugh penned the dissent, which was heavy with rhetoric, but not so much on the actual facts of the case.”
Sounds about right. That’s what he’s there for.
Kennedy, Souter, Roberts, O’Connor. It shows that Dem Presidents can appoint solid liberals, but GOP Presidents cannot appoint solid conservatives. Trump is good so far on this. I hope he gets to appoint three more for this reason even if he is a blowhard asshole.
I know my stance is unpopular on this board, but it is not a reasonable restriction on religion when you eviscerate the core of the right. And it is a frightening concept for judges to declare what is and what is not an essential thing for religion.
Yes, if I can go to Lowes and pick out a new kitchen or buy a truckload of treated lumber for a new deck, but the state tells me I cannot attend church, they have made a deliberate choice that inhibits the free exercise of religion.
Can you not see, as pointed out in the first quote, that there is a large difference in risk level between going to Lowe’s and going to church? Which is the point that the majority made, and the rationale for their decision.
My synagogue has been very active during the pandemic. We have all our usual services over zoom, and they contacted every household to do a “wellness check” and let people know that we are still functioning, and how to reach out if we need help.
I’ve actually attended more services than usual since the pandemic – a combination of having too many deaths and of friends who aren’t local inviting me to join their congregations.
I have lots of Christian friends who have managed to hold services, teach adult Sunday school, and otherwise exercise their religion despite the physical church building being closed.
Does your church only exist within a set of walls? Is it not truly a congregation of people?
Judges have absolutely no business second-guessing legislators making decisions on the advice of epidemiologists. Unless Kavanaugh has a degree in microbiology that he’s not telling us about he should just shut the fuck up. Hell, he can’t even get the legal argument right, and he’s supposed to be an authority on the law. It’s completely ridiculous that this is even a question.
I am curious as to which sect requires physical congregating in order to practice that religion. I’m certainly not aware of any, within any of the major religions.
Judges do have the business of telling legislators, governors, and epidemiologists that they cannot trample upon constitutional rights.
The question of whether people can attend church is not up for democratic decision making and certainly not up to decrees by fiat from governors or unelected bureaucrats. It was a right that was secured to us by the deaths in the Revolutionary War and enshrined in the Constitution.
The drafters of the Constitution knew about pandemics and did not insert an “unless there is a pandemic” exception to the First Amendment.
It’s interesting to see the “special rights” version of religious freedom gain prominence on the right. The more they perceive themselves to have lost on constructing a wider society in their image (whether that perception is correct is a different question), the more they seek a special separate status for themselves, almost like a sovereign native tribe.
Religion-neutral health and safety restrictions have always been validly imposed by legislators on religious groups. A church must meet fire codes, and not exceed its rated capacity. If in disrepair, it is subject to being condemned, in which case its congregation is restricted from attending church in that building. And right now in California, churches must follow the same rules as comparable secular establishments such as theatres. This does not restrict the practice of religion. No one is prevented from worshiping. Nor are there any Christian requirements to meet in large groups - indeed if anything the opposite: “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”
Honestly, you’d think after 17 centuries of total political domination of Western political life Christians would get off their persecution hobby-horse.
[ul]
[li]Exactly how does one recognize a solid conservative justice?[/li]
[li]What makes them better at their job than a “solid liberal” justice?[/li]
[li]Do you really not think the government has a compelling interest here?[/li][/ul]
The. I suggest you check out the concept of Holy Days of Obligation in that minor sect, the Roman Catholic Church. Every Catholic is expected to go to Mass on Sunday.
But, tying it to a requirement is downplaying the right. The First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. The guarantee of free exercise isn’t limited to “things my religion says I must do”. It is broader than that and extend to “religious activities I wish to engage in because they are good for my spiritual health.” You don’t have to go to Mass every day, but for some, they do, because that’s their choice, their free exercise.