Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

******Official SCOTUS Thread******


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, rockaction said:

That would be Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965) for that. It has nothing to do with Roe v. Wade.

Is that the case about Wallyworld being shut down and ruining the family vacation? Or the case of the missing bonus check thus ruining the family Christmas?   

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well I think it is only fair that we allow the next president to fill his seat.

“Pfft, there’s no difference between Clinton and Trump. I’ll just vote for Gary Johnson.”

Narrator: he said while making a broad assumption and putting people in a giant bucket

3 hours ago, dkp993 said:

Is that the case about Wallyworld being shut down and ruining the family vacation? Or the case of the missing bonus check thus ruining the family Christmas?   

Holiday Road vs. Clark (1983)

Even Russ knew she wasn't a floating waitress coming to take his order. Finding for the aggrieved plaintiff.

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 2
  • Laughing 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The new conservative majority asserts itself in a ruling protecting religious liberty over public health:

Supreme Court relieves religious organizations from some covid-related restrictions
By Robert Barnes

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-relieves-religious-organizations-from-some-covid-related-restrictions/2020/11/26/305f0094-2fa6-11eb-860d-f7999599cbc2_story.html

I can see both sides here but I believe Chief Roberts writing for the dissent has it correct. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shatner! said:

The new conservative majority asserts itself in a ruling protecting religious liberty over public health:

Supreme Court relieves religious organizations from some covid-related restrictions
By Robert Barnes

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-relieves-religious-organizations-from-some-covid-related-restrictions/2020/11/26/305f0094-2fa6-11eb-860d-f7999599cbc2_story.html

I can see both sides here but I believe Chief Roberts writing for the dissent has it correct. 

I can’t believe some of these religious organizations are meeting in person.  Shocking to me. They aren’t using zoom?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the story, and especially the quote from Sotomayor's dissent, it sounds like the justices are broadly in agreement that the state can impose restrictions on religious services, just that any restrictions placed on churches, synagogues, etc. need to be at least as permissive as restrictions placed on other organizations.  The main source of disagreement seems to be whether NY's restrictions satisfy that condition or not.  I agree strongly with the general principle, but I'm not informed enough about the rules in NY to even have an opinion about the particulars.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mrip541 said:

I believe the challenged restrictions capped the number of attendees at houses of worship while not capping certain businesses in the same zone, because people were/still are doing things like this.

Yeah, that was absolutely a willful disregard for the law.  While I'm for religious freedom, this is ridiculous and I believe they should fine those responsible.

It's okay to be religious and smart about viruses.  Not sure why that is so hard to understand for some religious people.

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Reading the story, and especially the quote from Sotomayor's dissent, it sounds like the justices are broadly in agreement that the state can impose restrictions on religious services, just that any restrictions placed on churches, synagogues, etc. need to be at least as permissive as restrictions placed on other organizations.  The main source of disagreement seems to be whether NY's restrictions satisfy that condition or not.  I agree strongly with the general principle, but I'm not informed enough about the rules in NY to even have an opinion about the particulars.

Same, on the bolded - but they provided several examples in the opinion.

Also, did anyone else get an Airplane! vibe from all the red zone, orange zone discussion?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Same, on the bolded - but they provided several examples in the opinion.

Also, did anyone else get an Airplane! vibe from all the red zone, orange zone discussion?

Imagine how they'd deal with her because she wouldn't have that abortion!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Shatner! said:

The new conservative majority asserts itself in a ruling protecting religious liberty over public health:

 

I know this is the common headline and spin. And it get the clicks and attention it's intended to.

Isn't it more accurate to say the ruling puts churches, synagogues, and mosques on the same plane as liquor stores and bike shops?

From Justice Gorsuch: "It is time—past time—to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I know this is the common headline and spin. And it get the clicks and attention it's intended to.

Isn't it more accurate to say the ruling puts churches, synagogues, and mosques on the same plane as liquor stores and bike shops?

From Justice Gorsuch: "It is time—past time—to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques."

And, as many have pointed out, churches really aren't anything like liquor stores and bike shops.  In terms of COVID spread, they are functionally far more like arenas, movie theaters, and bingo parlors.  Are those also closed or are those open?  I actually don't know what the current NY restrictions are for movie theaters, but I would say that churches should be treated more or less identically to movie theaters, in terms of COVID restrictions.

Edited by Rich Conway
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

And, as many have pointed out, churches really aren't anything like liquor stores and bike shops.  In terms of COVID spread, they are functionally far more like arenas, movie theaters, and bingo parlors.  Are those also closed or are those open?  I actually don't know what the current NY restrictions are for movie theaters, but I would say that churches should be treated more or less identically to movie theaters, in terms of COVID restrictions.

Of course. That can be a discussion. And comparing / contrasting those should be the discussion. But "protecting religious liberty over public health" is a much sexier angle. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I know this is the common headline and spin. And it get the clicks and attention it's intended to.

Isn't it more accurate to say the ruling puts churches, synagogues, and mosques on the same plane as liquor stores and bike shops?

From Justice Gorsuch: "It is time—past time—to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques."

Get back to me when you see a thousand people partying at a liquor store.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mrip541 said:

Get back to me when you see a thousand people partying at a liquor store.

I don't know the details of what the churches/synagogues/mosques are asking to be able to do. I could well be wrong but I don't think they're asking for "1,000 people partying". 

But again, I don't know. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

And, as many have pointed out, churches really aren't anything like liquor stores and bike shops.  In terms of COVID spread, they are functionally far more like arenas, movie theaters, and bingo parlors.  Are those also closed or are those open?  I actually don't know what the current NY restrictions are for movie theaters, but I would say that churches should be treated more or less identically to movie theaters, in terms of COVID restrictions.

To add a little more, I agree with you churches seem similar to a movie theater. I guess it depends too on the church. (Pre 2020, I know some churches that actually did rent out empty movie theaters on Sunday morning). 

Which brings the bigger point in my opinion - consistency.

If I owned a movie theater and wasn't allowed to be open with restrictions, I'd be pretty upset if a church was allowed to be open with similar restrictions. 

In just about every discussion I've had with people on this, it comes down to consistency. Can't dine at a restaurant indoors but you can fly in an airplane across the country. That kind of thing. And I don't know the answers. I'm not arguing for anything here. I'm pointing out the idea that most people I see discussing this are discussing the consistency aspect. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rich Conway said:

And, as many have pointed out, churches really aren't anything like liquor stores and bike shops.  In terms of COVID spread, they are functionally far more like arenas, movie theaters, and bingo parlors.  Are those also closed or are those open?

Arguing that a church functioning with 10 people at mass is the same( or more) risk as a liquor store running at full staff and capacity is the same risk is absolutely ridiculous.

Thats what everybody keeps leaping over on their way to making other comparisons. It isnt regular church vs regular liquor store that is relevant for this case. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some people are mentally picturing the Sunday morning "big" service, and that's certainly part of it. But they also discussed people praying and engaging in their faith based activities throughout the week. This is one of those decisions that make so much sense to me (and I'm an atheist) it almost seems like it should be a unanimous decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:
1 hour ago, Rich Conway said:

And, as many have pointed out, churches really aren't anything like liquor stores and bike shops.  In terms of COVID spread, they are functionally far more like arenas, movie theaters, and bingo parlors.  Are those also closed or are those open?  I actually don't know what the current NY restrictions are for movie theaters, but I would say that churches should be treated more or less identically to movie theaters, in terms of COVID restrictions.

Of course. That can be a discussion. And comparing / contrasting those should be the discussion. But "protecting religious liberty over public health" is a much sexier angle. 

Gorsuch choosing to compare churches to liquor stores is, with all due respect, stupid.  Frankly, by choosing those as his comparisons, it does appear a bit like he reached his conclusion first and then worked backward to get his legal opinion.

This is the current NY state guidance for movie theaters: https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/governor.ny.gov/files/atoms/files/Movie_Theater_Detailed_Guidelines.pdf

Quote

Pursuant to the Governor’s Executive Orders, movie theaters remain closed until Friday, October 23, 2020, at which time movie theaters in counties outside of New York City that have a COVID-19 positivity rate below 2%on a 14 day rolling average and that do not currently contain any cluster zones may reopen in accordance with this guidance.

Elsewhere, it notes that theaters will be allowed to reopen at 25% capacity with up to 50 people per screen.

22 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Arguing that a church functioning with 10 people at mass is the same( or more) risk as a liquor store running at full staff and capacity is the same risk is absolutely ridiculous.

Thats what everybody keeps leaping over on their way to making other comparisons. It isnt regular church vs regular liquor store that is relevant for this case. 

I don't think anyone is making that argument.

Edited by Rich Conway
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

I think some people are mentally picturing the Sunday morning "big" service, and that's certainly part of it. But they also discussed people praying and engaging in their faith based activities throughout the week. This is one of those decisions that make so much sense to me (and I'm an atheist) it almost seems like it should be a unanimous decision.

Agreed. Churches/Synagogues/Mosques can be all shapes and sizes.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rich Conway said:

Gorsuch choosing to compare churches to liquor stores is, with all due respect, stupid.  Frankly, by choosing those as his comparisons, it does appear a bit like he reached his conclusion first and then worked backward to get his legal opinion.

We'll just disagree Gorsuch's opinion is "stupid". Thanks though. 

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

I know this is the common headline and spin. And it get the clicks and attention it's intended to.

Isn't it more accurate to say the ruling puts churches, synagogues, and mosques on the same plane as liquor stores and bike shops?

From Justice Gorsuch: "It is time—past time—to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques."

Good point. Thank you. I agree it's a complex issue. My stance is SCOTUS shouldn't be intervening in local public health edicts surrounding a pandemic. In an ideal world entities like churches would put the lives and welfare of their congregations ahead of the need to fill the pews every Sunday voluntarily and governments would not even have to get involved. There is the issue of the health and safety of the whole community that is being threatened by large gatherings of people and this threat extends outside the circle of the congregation. I absolutely agree though that it's beyond ridiculous that all liquor stores, bars, restaurants, etc are not being shuttered in an exponential wildfire of pandemic spread. 

Edited by Shatner!
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

To add a little more, I agree with you churches seem similar to a movie theater. I guess it depends too on the church. (Pre 2020, I know some churches that actually did rent out empty movie theaters on Sunday morning). 

Which brings the bigger point in my opinion - consistency.

If I owned a movie theater and wasn't allowed to be open with restrictions, I'd be pretty upset if a church was allowed to be open with similar restrictions. 

In just about every discussion I've had with people on this, it comes down to consistency. Can't dine at a restaurant indoors but you can fly in an airplane across the country. That kind of thing. And I don't know the answers. I'm not arguing for anything here. I'm pointing out the idea that most people I see discussing this are discussing the consistency aspect. 

Totally agree. We are missing consistency.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

Gorsuch choosing to compare churches to liquor stores is, with all due respect, stupid.  Frankly, by choosing those as his comparisons, it does appear a bit like he reached his conclusion first and then worked backward to get his legal opinion.

This is the current NY state guidance for movie theaters: https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/governor.ny.gov/files/atoms/files/Movie_Theater_Detailed_Guidelines.pdf

Elsewhere, it notes that theaters will be allowed to reopen at 25% capacity with up to 50 people per screen.

I don't think anyone is making that argument.

Did Kavanaugh have an issue with liquor stores being shuttered? 🤔😉

  • Laughing 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

Gorsuch choosing to compare churches to liquor stores is, with all due respect, stupid.  Frankly, by choosing those as his comparisons, it does appear a bit like he reached his conclusion first and then worked backward to get his legal opinion.

This is the current NY state guidance for movie theaters: https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/governor.ny.gov/files/atoms/files/Movie_Theater_Detailed_Guidelines.pdf

Elsewhere, it notes that theaters will be allowed to reopen at 25% capacity with up to 50 people per screen.

I don't think anyone is making that argument.

The case isnt about whether a full scale church operation is like a full scale movie theater operation.

Gorsuch rightly pointed out liquor stores because it emphasizes the absurdity of allowing a synagogue to only have 10, but a liquor store to allow as many as they want. 

He doesnt have to pick a perfect comparison for standard operations

11 vs full is literally all that matters to rule on the case. 

If you agree that 11 people in a church that can seat 1000 is safer than a full scale liquor store, then I have no idea how you could ever disagree with the ruling. 

The case wasnt whether or not they can limit at all. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AAABatteries said:

Could they have added a small part about allowing all liquor stores to ship?  That would allow me to skip church and the liquor store.

They could have packaged up 1oz bottles of wine to ship with every purchase. Even added a basket that slides across the screen that you could venmo money into. Make it so right when you put the money in the basket a picture of it went on facebook so your neighbors could see you donated. Some cross marketing opportunities were missed for sure. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing churches to liquor stores is beyond absurd. I can go buy a bottle of Jim Beam from a liquor store wearing a mask without speaking to a single person. Meanwhile at church services the entire congregation are singing hymns out loud 30% of the time. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Comparing churches to liquor stores is beyond absurd. I can go buy a bottle of Jim Beam from a liquor store wearing a mask without speaking to a single person. Meanwhile at church services the entire congregation are singing hymns out loud 30% of the time. 

Now do peaceful protests.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Comparing churches to liquor stores is beyond absurd. I can go buy a bottle of Jim Beam from a liquor store wearing a mask without speaking to a single person. Meanwhile at church services the entire congregation are singing hymns out loud 30% of the time. 

Singing with masks is a problem?

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BladeRunner said:

Don't you mean "mostly" peaceful protests?

I know, but I don't want to get sidetracked by the violence.  I would like to hear about why it's okay for thousands of people to get together and scream at one another about social justice issues, but church services are totally different.  Both of these activities are expressly protected by the first amendment, so they're constitutionally symmetrical.  If @Jackstraw and @tommyGunZ are cool with shutting down BLM protests because of covid, then I'll listen to their arguments about church services.  Otherwise they can cram it.

  • Like 3
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I know, but I don't want to get sidetracked by the violence.  I would like to hear about why it's okay for thousands of people to get together and scream at one another about social justice issues, but church services are totally different.  Both of these activities are expressly protected by the first amendment, so they're constitutionally symmetrical.  If @Jackstraw and @tommyGunZ are cool with shutting down BLM protests because of covid, then I'll listen to their arguments about church services.  Otherwise they can cram it.

I'd like to hear what they have to say now too.  :thumbup:

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I would like to hear about why it's okay for thousands of people to get together and scream at one another about social justice issues, but church services are totally different.  Both of these activities are expressly protected by the first amendment, so they're constitutionally symmetrical. 

Now @IvanKaramazov No need to get all rational and consistent on us.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the inconsistency is what's troubled people the most. 

Whenever I talk to folks, it's almost always along the lines of "Why is "my" thing limited but "their" thing is ok?

Which often turns into "Why is "my" thing deemed "not essential" but "their" thing is deemed "essential"?

And of course, hypocrisy is rampant on this in all areas. 

I get it. It's not an easy issue to work through. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I know, but I don't want to get sidetracked by the violence.  I would like to hear about why it's okay for thousands of people to get together and scream at one another about social justice issues, but church services are totally different.  Both of these activities are expressly protected by the first amendment, so they're constitutionally symmetrical.  If @Jackstraw and @tommyGunZ are cool with shutting down BLM protests because of covid, then I'll listen to their arguments about church services.  Otherwise they can cram it.

I think even outdoor protests are a bad idea right now, but they are not apples-to-apples with indoor gatherings.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I think even outdoor protests are a bad idea right now, but they are not apples-to-apples with indoor gatherings.

Maybe, but doesn't that assume that all outdoor events have better ventilation than all indoor events?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

I think the inconsistency is what's troubled people the most. 

Whenever I talk to folks, it's almost always along the lines of "Why is "my" thing limited but "their" thing is ok?

Which often turns into "Why is "my" thing deemed "not essential" but "their" thing is deemed "essential"?

And of course, hypocrisy is rampant on this in all areas. 

I get it. It's not an easy issue to work through. 

Who all said the other was “ok” though?  I think people can see that those out protesting felt they had a large issue to speak ip about.  And even then, as they dod when Biden win, people spoke up hoping people would do it safely.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I don't understand your question.

I think about protests...Im wondering who saidnit was just ok to be out congregated, bot distanced or masked?  I think people understood it wasn’t seem as completely safe.

Saying those happened doesn't make congregating in large numbers in a church any more safe.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

I think about protests...Im wondering who saidnit was just ok to be out congregated, bot distanced or masked?  I think people understood it wasn’t seem as completely safe.

Saying those happened doesn't make congregating in large numbers in a church any more safe.

 

I assume the people doing whatever they are doing think it's "ok". 

When something is allowed like dining or airplane flying or liquor stores, there are authorities saying it's "ok". 

Maybe you're talking about something specific. I'm not. 

I think the inconsistency is what's troubled people the most. 

Whenever I talk to folks, it's almost always along the lines of "Why is "my" thing limited but "their" thing is ok?

Which often turns into "Why is "my" thing deemed "not essential" but "their" thing is deemed "essential"?

And of course, hypocrisy is rampant on this in all areas. 

I get it. It's not an easy issue to work through. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Joe Bryant said:

I assume the people doing whatever they are doing think it's "ok". 

When something is allowed like dining or airplane flying or liquor stores, there are authorities saying it's "ok". 

Maybe you're talking about something specific. I'm not. 

I think the inconsistency is what's troubled people the most. 

Whenever I talk to folks, it's almost always along the lines of "Why is "my" thing limited but "their" thing is ok?

Which often turns into "Why is "my" thing deemed "not essential" but "their" thing is deemed "essential"?

And of course, hypocrisy is rampant on this in all areas. 

I get it. It's not an easy issue to work through. 

Sure. I get that...just not those protesting are now the ones having issues woth this ruling.

But yes...I agree the inconsistency and hypocrisy is a huge problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The inconsistency and hypocrisy are only a problem in regards to the degree of acceptance or rejection of a particular restriction. I don't believe they have any bearing on the constitutionality of the restriction (fblawyerguys please correct me if I'm wrong). There's obviously no protection in the constitution for our right to pick up a bottle of wine. IMO, even a "consistent" restriction of no more than 10 people in any business would be rightly overturned for churches & synagogues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, tommyGunZ said:

Comparing churches to liquor stores is beyond absurd. I can go buy a bottle of Jim Beam from a liquor store wearing a mask without speaking to a single person. Meanwhile at church services the entire congregation are singing hymns out loud 30% of the time. 

You forgot about the liquor store employees and the distributor employees in the stores.

Also I am assuming you can hold your breath the whole time too. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

The inconsistency and hypocrisy are only a problem in regards to the degree of acceptance or rejection of a particular restriction. I don't believe they have any bearing on the constitutionality of the restriction (fblawyerguys please correct me if I'm wrong). There's obviously no protection in the constitution for our right to pick up a bottle of wine. IMO, even a "consistent" restriction of no more than 10 people in any business would be rightly overturned for churches & synagogues.

I haven't read this new case. But going by older precedent, laws that are generally applicable are okay under the Free-Exercise Clause even if they incidentally harm religion as long as they have a secular purpose and aren't aimed at hindering (or promoting) some religious practice.

A law saying "No gatherings of more than 10 people in any room, I don't care what kind of room it is" would probably be constitutional under that test. A law saying "No gatherings of more than 10 people in any room, except that protests and crowded liquor stores are cool" may not be constitutional as applied to churches because it's not generally applicable (there are exceptions) and certain religious practices are more disadvantaged by the law than certain non-religious practices are. The inconsistency is legally relevant.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

If i had my choice of being in the middle of 20,000 tightly packed screaming people outside or if I could be the 11th person in a big church in a red zone, that's a pretty easy choice. 

What if the tightly packed screaming people were screaming with excitement because each participant was being awarded a large cash prize, while the red-zone designation covering the church signaled imminent demolition? It seems your choice would be kind of bad in that case.

The point is: sometimes weird exceptions aren't worth worrying about. "Gather outside rather than inside" is a fine general principle even if you can think of quirky exceptions to it.

Edit: That was a little roundabout, sorry. I'll make the point more directly. I support you in your choice to be the 11th person in a big church rather than the 20,000th person in a screaming crowd. But would you have any preference between being in the middle of 20,000 tightly packed screaming people inside vs. being in the middle of 20,000 tightly packed screaming people outside? (Or a preference between being the 11th person in a group inside vs. being the 11th person in a group outside?) If so, inside-vs-outside isn't apples-to-apples.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

What if the tightly packed screaming people were screaming with excitement because each participant was being awarded a large cash prize, while the red-zone designation covering the church signaled imminent demolition? It seems your choice would be kind of bad in that case.

The point is: sometimes weird exceptions aren't worth worrying about. "Gather outside rather than inside" is a fine general principle even if you can think of quirky exceptions to it.

Edit: That was a little roundabout, sorry. I'll make the point more directly. I support you in your choice stated above. But would you have any preference regarding being in the middle of 20,000 tightly packed screaming people inside vs. being in the middle of 20,000 tightly packed screaming people outside? (Or a preference being the 11th person in a group inside vs. being the 11th person in a group outside?) If so, inside-vs-outside still isn't apples-to-apples.

Sorry. Thought we were making comparisons relevant to the supreme court case. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...