SCOTUS Strikes Down Cuomo's Draconian Restrictions On Religious Services In New York

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cathoholic

Guest
A morsel of sanity in a sea of insanity.

Hoping our Catholic Bishops keep this ruling in mind.
(Hat tip to the Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn who along with our Jewish friends, participated in defending religious liberty here!)

.

SCOTUS Strikes Down Cuomo’s Draconian Restrictions On Religious Services In New York​

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

by Tyler Durden

Thu, 11/26/2020

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

The Supreme Court late Wednesday blocked New York officials from limiting religious gatherings, a win for Orthodox Jews who had sued over restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
" Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area," the majority opinion said.

" But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten. The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty."
Click to expand...
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

In a 5-4 decision, the nation’s highest court said New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, and other officials cannot enforce occupancy limits set in a previous executive order.

Cuomo had mandated that attendance at religious services remain at 10 people or under in so-called red zones and at 25 or under in orange zones.

New York officials have created a color-coding system to mark what levels they believe the pandemic has affected certain areas. . . .
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:

Supreme Court Sides with Religious Groups Against Andrew Cuomo, 5-4​

Click to expand...
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Olivier Douliery/AFP/Getty Images

JOEL B. POLLAK

25 Nov 2020

The U.S. Supreme Court granted an injunction Wednesday evening against New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s restrictions on religious services in a 5-4 decision that saw Justice Amy Coney Barrett with the conservative majority — and Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the liberal minority.

The Court was responding to a request for an emergency injunction by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and the Agudath Israel of America, an Orthodox Jewish group, against restrictions limiting services to ten people in some areas and 25 people in others.

In early October, Cuomo openly threatened to “close the synagogues” if they did not comply with his orders. . .

. . . But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.

Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a concurring opinion, as did Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion in which he noted that the governor had changed the restrictions the day after the lawsuit was filed. Justice Kavanaugh, however, pointed out that the underlying executive order was still in effect, meaning the governor needed to be constrained . . .
Click to expand...
 

Nolte: Thanksgiving SCOTUS Decision Shows We’re One Vote from Losing First Amendment​

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Greg Nash-Pool/Getty Images

JOHN NOLTE

26 Nov 2020

What have we already learned on this Thanksgiving Day? That we are one vote away, just one little vote, from losing our sacred First Amendment rights, our right to assemble and to worship our God.

You don’t need me to tell you — well, maybe if you attended public schools you do — that one of the primary reasons the pilgrims jumped on the Mayflower and came over to this continent was to escape the religious persecution of fascists like New York’s Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who flagrantly issued an edict outlawing religious services of more than ten or 25 people, depending on the area.

Cuomo audaciously wrote his own law, one that violates the First Amendment’s right to peaceful assembly and the First Amendment’s explicit call for government to not interfere with how American citizens practice their religion.

And all of this is happening in a political environment where the corporate media and Democrats like Cuomo violate their own rules, encourage, and even join violent protests led by the domestic terrorists in Black Lives Matter and Antifa. . . .

. . . If Ruth Bader Ginsberg were still on the Court, Cuomo’s fascist persecution would have been sanctified by the highest court in the land.

And we would have lost 5-4, primarily because of George W. Bush appointee John Roberts, who the useless establishment said was someone who could be counted on not to rewrite the Constitution, and has in practice ended up being just another radical leftist enamored with the authoritarianism of central planning . . .

. . . We know the survival rate, according to the CDC, is around 996 out of 1000, so it should be up to us to assess the risks, to decide whether or not to choose freedom over safety. . . .

. . . We didn’t outlaw gay sex when the AIDS virus had a fatality rate of 100 percent, we educated the public on the risks and allowed people to make their own decisions. In that same spirit, we should not be outlawing or restricting ANYTHING in the face of a virus with a 996 out of 1000 survival rate, much less the First Amendment.

But there the First Amendment dangles, by the skin of one measly vote…
Click to expand...
 
Cathoholic said:
Which one so I can merge my posts?
Click to expand...
It was this one. But your thread is now slightly bigger, so maybe that thread should merge with this one.

In any case, I will repeat what I said over there:

I think this was good decision by the Court. The specific restrictions announced by Cuomo were too strict and inflexible. What he should have done (and maybe he will now) is change the rule to allow any number to gather for worship provided certain social distancing measures can be taken. There are some huge Churches in New York that could easily seat much much more than 25 with lots of distance between people. If they did this, and required masks, and provided safe entry and exit procedures, there is no reason why attendance should be limited to 25 in a big Church. I will note that fire marshal restrictions on capacity have been in effect for decades, so reasonable restrictions are constitutional. This one just wasn’t reasonable. I hope a more reasonable one will come along.

TMC then pointed out the the decision might be moot because Cuomo has already agreed to relax some restrictions.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
I think this was good decision by the Court.
Click to expand...
I agree with you Leaf.
TMC then pointed out the the decision might be moot because Cuomo has already agreed to relax some restrictions.
Click to expand...
The Court addressed that issue and said it was not moot by addressing it.

Cuomo put forth a loser rule without authority.
He quickly changed it (but not before it went to the Supremes).

The Supreme Court chose to address it and put him and the rest of the country’s overzealous authoritarian politicians on notice.
“The Supreme Court made a ruling. It’s more illustrative of the Supreme Court than anything else,” Cuomo said, noting the court’s new conservative bent with the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett by President Trump.

“It’s irrelevant of any practical impact because of the zone they were talking about is moot. It expired last week,” the governor said, adding, “It doesn’t have any practical effect.”

“The lawsuit was about the Brooklyn zone. The Brooklyn zone no longer exists as a red zone. That’s muted. So that restriction is no longer in effect. That situation just doesn’t exist because those restrictions are gone.”

The governor’s legal adviser Beth Garvey, said houses of worship are now governed by less restrictive 50 percent capacity limits.

In its decision, the nation’s highest court said its decision temporarily blocking Cuomo’s executive order on the 10- and 25-person occupancy limits remains in effect pending further deliberation in the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. They acknowledged the order narrowly addressed the zones in question, which are outdated.

Still in the larger context, the five justices in the majority warned they won’t tolerate violations of the First Amendment right to religious freedom — telegraphing what they might do on broader cases involving statewide restrictions on houses of worship, for example.

“Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area. But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten,” the judges said.

“The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.

“There can be no question that the challenged restrictions, if enforced, will cause irreparable harm….
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Yes, according to Cuomo, the ruling is “irrelevant” because New York had already determined that these houses of worship in Brooklyn are no longer in designated zones that contributed to the surge in number of cases. Still, I think the number of congregants should be limited for safety purposes by the Catholic churches and synagogue leaders themselves, and that the State was rightly doing what the houses of worship had failed to do initially. When overflowing numbers of people in houses of worship contribute to the spread of a deadly virus, it is at this point that freedom of religion must take a back seat to the health and safety of the larger community.
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
Yes, according to Cuomo, the ruling is “irrelevant” because New York had already determined that these houses of worship in Brooklyn are no longer in designated zones that contributed to the surge in number of cases.
Click to expand...
Of course Cuomo is going to say that.

He wanted this to be dropped before it was ruled on.

My guess is, if the Supreme Court decided not to hear it, Cuomo would still be doing this against Churches or at least threatening to do so. If not in this “zone”, others.

Not only is this another black eye against Cuomo (“Cuomo is the guy who the Supreme Court ruled overstepped the Constitution against Religious Liberty” - that will tarnish his future presidential aspirations), but it puts him on notice for further Constitutional breaches.

I am glad the Supreme Court saw fit to rule on this.

The PRINCIPLE was too important to ignore in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
In my view, the “principle” is secondary to the health and safety of the larger community. That is, when religious rights threaten the welfare of the city, that is the point that religious rights must be limited. I believe it was the wrong ruling, especially for an overcrowded city such as New York, which is trying NOT to go back to the terrible death toll and hospitalizations suffered this past March and April.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
In my view, the “principle” is secondary to the health and safety of the larger community.
Click to expand...
The Constitution is not to be ignored. Even in a pandemic.

(Your position has the built-in presupposition that the destruction of freedom has no “health and safety” consequences. A premise I disagree with.)

In this case BOTH were taken care of.
 
Last edited:
Some people do not wish to be martyrs to the Constitution. Insofar as the synagogues are concerned, it is even AGAINST the Jewish religion to potentially sacrifice one’s life for the cause of religious worship. Jews can worship at home if necessary, and they should take every precaution not to spread the virus. Shame on these (mainly) Hasidic Orthodox shuls which are flouting safety protocols.
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
Some people do not wish to be martyrs to the Constitution.
Click to expand...
This ignores the risk-benefit ratio of destroying America. Making America foundationally different.

Your statement is a partial truth and I disagree with some of the built-in implications here.
 
Last edited:
There will be more unrest as these gratuitous quarantines of HEALTHY people continue.

Even in countries without the US Constitution.

This going on in Germany right how that the MSM is not reporting in a widespread manner. . .

 
Last edited:

“Infections that are sustained today are going to show up in three weeks and are going to show up in deaths over Christmas and New Year’s and are going to spread in every state.”

There was a time when American citizens would come together and make sacrifices during a pandemic.

But instead we’re getting ready to see a time when they cry together with regrets I fear.
 
Cathoholic . . .
The Constitution is not to be ignored. Even in a pandemic.
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court . . .
But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten. The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty."
Click to expand...
ProVobis . . .
Isn’t public safety implied in the Constitution?
Click to expand...
.

“Public safety” is not reducible down to viral infections.

Furthermore, I think your premise has the built-in presupposition that
public worship and public safety are somehow diametrically opposed here.

Using that logic, you would need to say the same thing about going to “necessary” businesses too.
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
Yes, according to Cuomo, the ruling is “irrelevant” because New York had already determined that these houses of worship in Brooklyn are no longer in designated zones that contributed to the surge in number of cases. Still, I think the number of congregants should be limited for safety purposes by the Catholic churches and synagogue leaders themselves, and that the State was rightly doing what the houses of worship had failed to do initially.
Click to expand...
I agree in principle, but for fairness, there is no reason to limit the number of congregants in a huge cathedral the same way it is limited in a tiny 100-seat chapel. What matters is not the total number in the building, but distance between people with adequate safety measures in place. The problem with Cuomo’s initial rule was that it did not take any of that into account and adopted an inflexible one-size-fits-all limit on number of people. It did not make sense.
 
Last edited:
Definitely some good news.

If Biden gets in you suppose Breyer retires with in the first couple years?

Hopefully Thomas wants to keep at it until another Republican can get in… if they fix the election mess…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top