The "constitutional standards that would normally govern our review of a Free Exercise claim should not be applied," wrote the two judges in the majority opinion.It’s hardly a suicide pact to allow low risk people to choose to attend services given that the fatality rate is apparently under one percent. Most won’t choose to go anyway. Less burdensome options like education have already persuaded most people of the wisdom of that.
"We're dealing here with a highly contagious and often fatal disease for which there presently is no known cure. In the words of Justice Robert Jackson, if a '(c)ourt does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact,'" according to the opinion.
Meanwhile in Maryland, a local government has banned the Eucharist.
"Often fatal" is an odd description of a disease whose case fatality rate appears to be under 1%--to say nothing of the remaining shoddiness of the Constitutional analysis.
ReplyDeleteThe two judges--Judges Jacqueline Nguyen and Barry Silverman--carefully ignored the warning of another Justice, a Chief Justice, at that:
ReplyDeleteThe good sought in unconstitutional legislation is an insidious feature because it leads citizens and legislators of good purpose to promote it without thought of the serious breach it will make in the ark of our covenant or the harm which will come from breaking down recognized standards.
It applies just as firmly to the unconstitutional legislation of judges from their bench. And to their unconstitutional rulings that suspend the very Constitution they're sworn to support and defend.
These two 9th Circuit judges have openly and deliberately violated their oath of office [emphasis added]:
I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
I won't hold my breath on their impeachment, though.
Eric Hines
Way under 1%. More like 1/100 of one percent. This whole thing is a propaganda disinformation game being run on us, with every attempt being made to "enhance " the death rate rate, up to and including deliberate manslaughter. Forcing nursing homes to accept chi-com flu patients, without any possibility of adequate isolation methods, is just that.
ReplyDeleteThe numbers say around one third to one half of ALL fatalities occur in nursing home environments.
I must be getting miffed, because stakes, heads and hammers frequent my yard art ideas.
Imagine if the rate was not depressed. A 1 percent fatality combined with hrc as president, amis would be turning each 9ther in already to the ss.
DeleteYou're generous to call that "Constitutional analysis," T99.
ReplyDeleteEric Hines
Grim, while i may not make the bet timeline since they still are not releasing the operations in us cities, i am glad to see these events wake people up.
ReplyDeleteIt is one thing to slhear me talk about cw 2. Another to talk. But humanity truly only believes if they suffer and see.
Bah, I cannot fathom how anyone is surprised by this ruling. Our constitutional order has long tolerated "time, place, and manner" restrictions on protected speech, so temporary emergency orders to protect public health, safety, and welfare shouldn't be unexpected, much less beyond the pale.
ReplyDeleteFree citizens - if they are worthy to be called such - ought to be able to look at these sort of regulations and give their public servants a little leeway. In circumstances where there is both an imminent risk and a great deal of uncertainty, we can all survive a little temporary squeezing of our liberties.
As facts become clearer, and the nature of the threat is better understood, there will be opportunities to establish that such measures are no longer needed; and to get the courts to rule accordingly. The fact that a court made this ruling now in no way means that no court would ever be able to rule differently, once the facts are able to show that the measures are no longer warranted - or that the state is inflating risk as a pretext for permanent restrictions.
But demanding that governors or courts adhere to strict blackletter interpretations of the Constitution regardless of the circumstances they find themselves in? That doesn't serve anyone's interest. Making the perfect the enemy of the good is neither wise nor conservative.
[I can feel myself gearing up for a longer rant - about how the essential quality of a free society is restraint - but I don't have time to do it justice, so I'm cutting this short.]
Free citizens - if they are worthy to be called such - ought to be able to look at these sort of regulations and give their public servants a little leeway.
ReplyDeleteWe are giving them a little. The process is being allowed to work itself out; nobody's heads are up on pikes yet.
But patience ought not be unlimited, and free citizens have every reason to recognize that 'leeway' given to the government can easily turn into a one-way ratchet.
I agree that we should be concerned about the ratchet.
ReplyDeleteBut, there is a reason that we have the saying, “bad facts make bad law." So (and I say this as one who would like nothing more than to stand on my principles and make the nanny-staters choke on their over-reach), if those who love liberty rush to court while the facts are such as can give an out to the lovers of power, they will only be helping to set the precedents that will be used to put the pawl in your ratchet.
I grant that fighting hard cases increases the chance of setting bad precedent. However, so does _not_ fighting the unpleasant/hard/fringe cases, as explored here:
ReplyDeletehttps://securitystudies.org/why-protect-extreme-speech/
Ultimately the error may be in accepting the courts as the final word. Natural law supersedes constitutional law in the same way that constitutional law supersedes ordinary positive law. If the courts finally turn against a basic principle like freedom of speech or religion, then it is time to replace the courts.
Natural law supersedes constitutional law in the same way that constitutional law supersedes ordinary positive law. If the courts finally turn against a basic principle like freedom of speech or religion, then it is time to replace the courts.
ReplyDeleteThis is the truth, purely spoken. I could not have said it any better.
Which has always been the best argument for Trump: he’s made giant strides in replacing the courts we had for ones that are more interested in a correct constitutional order. One more on SCOTUS and Roberts’ occasional alignment with the left won’t matter.
ReplyDeletenobody's heads are up on pikes yet.
ReplyDeleteNor have they been turned to pillars of salt, via a scalar weapon. Or Dustification ala 2001.
Plenty of leeway is being given to dark and light civs.