What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

******Official SCOTUS Thread****** (5 Viewers)

sho nuff said:
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.
Click to expand...
yea & the people who want to express their religion feel that they have a "larger issue to speak up about".

 
shadrap said:
yea & the people who want to express their religion feel that they have a "larger issue to speak up about".
Click to expand...
One of my takeaways from covid is that a surprisingly large number of people completely lack any sense of self-awareness and empathy.  You'll get people who are perfectly capable of making reasonable, nuanced decisions about their own lives that (in their view) prudently balance their own personal priorities versus their informed tolerance for risk.  E.g. "There's inherently a certain level of danger involved in attending this mass protest, but this cause is extremely important to me so I'm going to participate while taking reasonable precautions to keep my risk to an acceptable level."  And of course that's great -- that's how grown adults should think about things like this.

But then those same people turn around in the next breath and get all angry about folks going to beach, visiting their families on a holiday, attending worship, etc.  And I don't mean just that they analyze the risk-reward tradeoff a little differently.  I mean, they actually get viscerally angry at other people even making the tradeoff that they thought was perfectly fine when they did it themselves.  If you understood why you thought it was reasonable to attend your BLM protest over the summer, you'd think it would be really easy to understand why somebody else might similarly decide that travelling to see their parents over Thanksgiving is also reasonable.  But nope -- instead it's nothing but anger and vitriol.  

The complete lack of empathy is honestly pretty amazing.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
One of my takeaways from covid is that a surprisingly large number of people completely lack any sense of self-awareness and empathy.  You'll get people who are perfectly capable of making reasonable, nuanced decisions about their own lives that (in their view) prudently balance their own personal priorities versus their informed tolerance for risk.  E.g. "There's inherently a certain level of danger involved in attending this mass protest, but this cause is extremely important to me so I'm going to participate while taking reasonable precautions to keep my risk to an acceptable level."  And of course that's great -- that's how grown adults should think about things like this.

But then those same people turn around in the next breath and get all angry about folks going to beach, visiting their families on a holiday, attending worship, etc.  And I don't mean just that they analyze the risk-reward tradeoff a little differently.  I mean, they actually get viscerally angry at other people even making the tradeoff that they thought was perfectly fine when they did it themselves.  If you understood why you thought it was reasonable to attend your BLM protest over the summer, you'd think it would be really easy to understand why somebody else might similarly decide that travelling to see their parents over Thanksgiving is also reasonable.  But nope -- instead it's nothing but anger and vitriol.  

The complete lack of empathy is honestly pretty amazing.
Click to expand...
well that is just humanity as a whole & I'm not saying I disagree with your statement.

 
I suppose when NPR puts out a headline like this  

Supreme Court Says New York Can't Limit Attendance In Houses of Worship Due To COVID
Click to expand...
which is false, we shouldn't be shocked that people made up their mind about how they felt. The actual decision even mentions limiting attendance based on other metrics such as the size of the church. 

Not only is there no evidence that the applicants have contributed to the spread of COVID–19 but there are many other less restrictive rules that could be adopted to minimize the risk to those attending religious services. Among other things, the maximum attendance at a religious service could be tied to the size of the church or synagogue. 
Click to expand...



 
shadrap said:
yea & the people who want to express their religion feel that they have a "larger issue to speak up about".
Click to expand...
Sure...as I said, be safe about...and indoors that should include capacity limits and only select seating throughout the church to provide adequate distancing.  Im glad my church does that and requires masks.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
One of my takeaways from covid is that a surprisingly large number of people completely lack any sense of self-awareness and empathy.  You'll get people who are perfectly capable of making reasonable, nuanced decisions about their own lives that (in their view) prudently balance their own personal priorities versus their informed tolerance for risk.  E.g. "There's inherently a certain level of danger involved in attending this mass protest, but this cause is extremely important to me so I'm going to participate while taking reasonable precautions to keep my risk to an acceptable level."  And of course that's great -- that's how grown adults should think about things like this.

But then those same people turn around in the next breath and get all angry about folks going to beach, visiting their families on a holiday, attending worship, etc.  And I don't mean just that they analyze the risk-reward tradeoff a little differently.  I mean, they actually get viscerally angry at other people even making the tradeoff that they thought was perfectly fine when they did it themselves.  If you understood why you thought it was reasonable to attend your BLM protest over the summer, you'd think it would be really easy to understand why somebody else might similarly decide that travelling to see their parents over Thanksgiving is also reasonable.  But nope -- instead it's nothing but anger and vitriol.  

The complete lack of empathy is honestly pretty amazing.
Click to expand...
I've thought some of the same here. And I'd add hypocrisy to the self-awareness and empathy mix. 

It matters.

We're all guilty of it. I'm guilty of these things too. I think maybe it's just the spotlight on these things has intensified with the political season added to the pandemic. 

 
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. 
Click to expand...
In this case it is pretty simple.  The 1st amendment doesn't mention liquor stores, banks, hotels, or whatever else.  It is pretty specific allowing for freedom of speech (general) and freedom of religion and the press (specific).  Freedom of religion is the very first item mentioned - it's that way for a reason.  

By our founding documents these precious freedoms deserve the most consideration.  Any law, rule, or executive decree that doesn't give due consideration to this should be slapped down hard.  And they have, correctly.

"Government is not free to disregard the First Amendment in times of crisis."

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. 
Click to expand...
30%, huh?  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
One of my takeaways from covid is that a surprisingly large number of people completely lack any sense of self-awareness and empathy.  You'll get people who are perfectly capable of making reasonable, nuanced decisions about their own lives that (in their view) prudently balance their own personal priorities versus their informed tolerance for risk.  E.g. "There's inherently a certain level of danger involved in attending this mass protest, but this cause is extremely important to me so I'm going to participate while taking reasonable precautions to keep my risk to an acceptable level."  And of course that's great -- that's how grown adults should think about things like this.

But then those same people turn around in the next breath and get all angry about folks going to beach, visiting their families on a holiday, attending worship, etc.  And I don't mean just that they analyze the risk-reward tradeoff a little differently.  I mean, they actually get viscerally angry at other people even making the tradeoff that they thought was perfectly fine when they did it themselves.  If you understood why you thought it was reasonable to attend your BLM protest over the summer, you'd think it would be really easy to understand why somebody else might similarly decide that travelling to see their parents over Thanksgiving is also reasonable.  But nope -- instead it's nothing but anger and vitriol.  

The complete lack of empathy is honestly pretty amazing.
Click to expand...
How do you know it's the same people? How do you know that the people attending BLM protests aren't also going to the beach and such? Or is "they" every single person who is left leaning?

 
IvanKaramazov said:
One of my takeaways from covid is that a surprisingly large number of people completely lack any sense of self-awareness and empathy.  You'll get people who are perfectly capable of making reasonable, nuanced decisions about their own lives that (in their view) prudently balance their own personal priorities versus their informed tolerance for risk.  E.g. "There's inherently a certain level of danger involved in attending this mass protest, but this cause is extremely important to me so I'm going to participate while taking reasonable precautions to keep my risk to an acceptable level."  And of course that's great -- that's how grown adults should think about things like this.

But then those same people turn around in the next breath and get all angry about folks going to beach, visiting their families on a holiday, attending worship, etc.  And I don't mean just that they analyze the risk-reward tradeoff a little differently.  I mean, they actually get viscerally angry at other people even making the tradeoff that they thought was perfectly fine when they did it themselves.  If you understood why you thought it was reasonable to attend your BLM protest over the summer, you'd think it would be really easy to understand why somebody else might similarly decide that travelling to see their parents over Thanksgiving is also reasonable.  But nope -- instead it's nothing but anger and vitriol.  

The complete lack of empathy is honestly pretty amazing.
Click to expand...
Not surprisingly, I think your bias is coloring your view here. I’m likely one of the folks you’re alluding to here, so I’ll explain why I respectfully disagree with you good buddy. 

1) Outdoor protests aren’t apples-to-apples comparisons to attending indoor church services. And that’s not even taking into account the fact that those attending outdoor protests were more likely to be taking precautions (masks, social distancing) than those attending indoor religious services (no masks or social distancing). 

2) I disagree with your equating normal Sunday church services with a national uprising against excessive use of force by the govt. In non-covid times, my family would have attended at least one rally in support of social justice this summer, but due to Covid we did not.  Still, I absolutely understand why some felt compelled to show support for the cause, and equating it to a normal Sunday church service reflects a lack of understanding, IMO.  It’s like equating the March on Washington to a football game.  IK in 1963, “If they can march on the Capitol, why can’t I go to the Bills game?!?!”

3) Empathy isn’t a bottomless keg. Do I feel more empathy for victims of social injustice than for upper middle class white women like my cousin in North Carolina who protests in Raleigh weekly because she feels that being asked to wear a mask is an infringement on her rights?  Absolutely.  🤷 

 
tommyGunZ said:
Not surprisingly, I think your bias is coloring your view here. I’m likely one of the folks you’re alluding to here, so I’ll explain why I respectfully disagree with you good buddy. 

1) Outdoor protests aren’t apples-to-apples comparisons to attending indoor church services. And that’s not even taking into account the fact that those attending outdoor protests were more likely to be taking precautions (masks, social distancing) than those attending indoor religious services (no masks or social distancing). 

2) I disagree with your equating normal Sunday church services with a national uprising against excessive use of force by the govt. In non-covid times, my family would have attended at least one rally in support of social justice this summer, but due to Covid we did not.  Still, I absolutely understand why some felt compelled to show support for the cause, and equating it to a normal Sunday church service reflects a lack of understanding, IMO.  It’s like equating the March on Washington to a football game.  IK in 1963, “If they can march on the Capitol, why can’t I go to the Bills game?!?!”

3) Empathy isn’t a bottomless keg. Do I feel more empathy for victims of social injustice than for upper middle class white women like my cousin in North Carolina who protests in Raleigh weekly because she feels that being asked to wear a mask is an infringement on her rights?  Absolutely.  🤷 
Click to expand...
I'll take a link to the middle class white women protest that is occurring weekly.  Thanks

 
tommyGunZ said:
1) And that’s not even taking into account the fact that those attending outdoor protests were more likely to be taking precautions (masks, social distancing) than those attending indoor religious services (no masks or social distancing). 
Click to expand...
Oh, let's see a link on this one.  This hasn't been anywhere close to my experience.  Add in proof for the 30% claim, too, while you're at it.

tommyGunZ said:
2) I disagree with your equating normal Sunday church services with a national uprising against excessive use of force by the govt. In non-covid times, my family would have attended at least one rally in support of social justice this summer, but due to Covid we did not.  Still, I absolutely understand why some felt compelled to show support for the cause, and equating it to a normal Sunday church service reflects a lack of understanding, IMO.  It’s like equating the March on Washington to a football game.  IK in 1963, “If they can march on the Capitol, why can’t I go to the Bills game?!?!”
Click to expand...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

They are equal under the law and are among the most cherished freedoms we have.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ said:
Not surprisingly, I think your bias is coloring your view here. I’m likely one of the folks you’re alluding to here, so I’ll explain why I respectfully disagree with you good buddy. 

1) Outdoor protests aren’t apples-to-apples comparisons to attending indoor church services. And that’s not even taking into account the fact that those attending outdoor protests were more likely to be taking precautions (masks, social distancing) than those attending indoor religious services (no masks or social distancing). 

2) I disagree with your equating normal Sunday church services with a national uprising against excessive use of force by the govt. In non-covid times, my family would have attended at least one rally in support of social justice this summer, but due to Covid we did not.  Still, I absolutely understand why some felt compelled to show support for the cause, and equating it to a normal Sunday church service reflects a lack of understanding, IMO.  It’s like equating the March on Washington to a football game.  IK in 1963, “If they can march on the Capitol, why can’t I go to the Bills game?!?!”

3) Empathy isn’t a bottomless keg. Do I feel more empathy for victims of social injustice than for upper middle class white women like my cousin in North Carolina who protests in Raleigh weekly because she feels that being asked to wear a mask is an infringement on her rights?  Absolutely.  🤷 
Click to expand...
I think your response actually highlights the original point.  

Saying that comparing church to social justice marches shows a lack of awareness.

If you're religious, you believe in heaven and hell.  You feel compelled to worship, to tell others about the saving grace of Jesus Christ.  You see that as the battle for someone's everlasting soul.  

And...you're saying that that's the same as a football game in your eyes.  It's not important to you.  But social justice is.  

For Christians, Catholics, etc. their religion is the difference in heaven and hell.  It's MUCH more than a football game.  So...why do you or others get to decided that social justice marches are acceptable but expressing their faith isn't?

 
jm192 said:
I think your response actually highlights the original point.  

Saying that comparing church to social justice marches shows a lack of awareness.

If you're religious, you believe in heaven and hell.  You feel compelled to worship, to tell others about the saving grace of Jesus Christ.  You see that as the battle for someone's everlasting soul.  

And...you're saying that that's the same as a football game in your eyes.  It's not important to you.  But social justice is.  

For Christians, Catholics, etc. their religion is the difference in heaven and hell.  It's MUCH more than a football game.  So...why do you or others get to decided that social justice marches are acceptable but expressing their faith isn't?
Click to expand...
And Christians should also know the church doesn’t necessarily mean a building with people either.  One can practice religion without being gathered in large groups indoors.

Also, you don’t have to separate Catholics from Christians.  We are Christians. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff said:
And Christians should also know the church doesn’t necessarily mean a building with people either.  One can practice religion without being gathered in large groups indoors.

Also, you don’t have to separate Catholics from Christians.  We are Christians. 
Click to expand...
Haha, of course.  

To the bigger point:  I would absolutely implore churches to look at holding online services only.  I would ask them to look at outdoor services over indoor services.  

But as others have pointed out:  We allow Americans to choose what level of risk they will tolerate and how to keep themselves safe at protests, Lowes, Wal-Mart, etc.  Why would we not let them do the same at church services.  

I think it's reasonable of government to work with church leaders and try to reduce in person services.  I don't think it's reasonable to pass restrictions they don't agree to while I can walk into Lowes all willy nilly, in many places without a mask if I choose.  

 
jm192 said:
Haha, of course.  

To the bigger point:  I would absolutely implore churches to look at holding online services only.  I would ask them to look at outdoor services over indoor services.  

But as others have pointed out:  We allow Americans to choose what level of risk they will tolerate and how to keep themselves safe at protests, Lowes, Wal-Mart, etc.  Why would we not let them do the same at church services.  

I think it's reasonable of government to work with church leaders and try to reduce in person services.  I don't think it's reasonable to pass restrictions they don't agree to while I can walk into Lowes all willy nilly, in many places without a mask if I choose.  
Click to expand...
Because people have shown they wont make the proper decisions and its a detriment to public health?

Id argue its less comparable to store shopping and more to restaurants where you are seated/indoors and not moving around for extended periods of time.

And while I agree there are constitutional issues at hand...I also can see the founders were not taking into consideration pandemics, public health, and technology that now exists to practice religion without being congregated in person.

And yes...Id hope we can work with churches and restaurants and bars and everything to limit capacity.

Which is a must as people have over and over shown we are not responsible enough to limit ourselves.

And Id prefer places like Lowes and Walmart go back to limiting capacity as they did earlier in spring/summer.  Including some me way aisles.  Enforcement is difficult as people are inconsiderate and rude.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff said:
Because people have shown they wont make the proper decisions and its a detriment to public health?

Id argue its less comparable to store shopping and more to restaurants where you are seated/indoors and not moving around for extended periods of time.

And while I agree there are constitutional issues at hand...I also can see the founders were not taking into consideration pandemics, public health, and technology that now exists to practice religion without being congregated in person.

And yes...Id hope we can work with churches and restaurants and bars and everything to limit capacity.

Which is a must as people have over and over shown we are not respomsible enough to limit ourselves.
Click to expand...
But we're allowed to make a lot of bad decisions that are of detriment to public health.  Whatever we feel it's comparable to...we allow Americans to choose their activities and acceptable risk level in so many other areas of life.  

I would argue--that arguing churches represent elevated risk and thus require higher restrictions gets the constitutionality of it all.  I don't think people are doing a good job of social distancing and mask wearing at Lowes, Wal-Mart, etc.   People are making those some improper decisions in other venues.  

I don't disagree with your statement about the founders.  I still don't think we govern churches into closing their doors.  I think churches should shut their doors.  But I don't think it's the place of any level of government to tell them to do so. 

 
jm192 said:
But we're allowed to make a lot of bad decisions that are of detriment to public health.  Whatever we feel it's comparable to...we allow Americans to choose their activities and acceptable risk level in so many other areas of life.  

I would argue--that arguing churches represent elevated risk and thus require higher restrictions gets the constitutionality of it all.  I don't think people are doing a good job of social distancing and mask wearing at Lowes, Wal-Mart, etc.   People are making those some improper decisions in other venues.  

I don't disagree with your statement about the founders.  I still don't think we govern churches into closing their doors.  I think churches should shut their doors.  But I don't think it's the place of any level of government to tell them to do so. 
Click to expand...
But my argument isn’t that Churches are an elevated risk and lowes isnt.

That seems to be the “well, they are doing it” argument that I don’t find very compelling.  Especially as the comparison of people moving about is different than those sitting in closer proximity for an extended period (say more than 15 minutes) which we know is more of a risk.

 
sho nuff said:
But my argument isn’t that Churches are an elevated risk and lowes isnt.

That seems to be the “well, they are doing it” argument that I don’t find very compelling.  Especially as the comparison of people moving about is different than those sitting in closer proximity for an extended period (say more than 15 minutes) which we know is more of a risk.
Click to expand...
The argument isn't "well someone else is doing it."

The argument is that people are ok with whatever they find important and poo poo others for doing what they find important.  

 
jm192 said:
The argument isn't "well someone else is doing it."

The argument is that people are ok with whatever they find important and poo poo others for doing what they find important.  
Click to expand...
But again...who is ok with it?  I think people who believe Churches should limit capacity also believe Lowes should.

 
jm192 said:
But we're allowed to make a lot of bad decisions that are of detriment to public health.  Whatever we feel it's comparable to...we allow Americans to choose their activities and acceptable risk level in so many other areas of life.  
Click to expand...
:yes:

Cigarettes and alcohol are horrible for public health...

 
Kao-Lin said:
:yes:

Cigarettes and alcohol are horrible for public health...
Click to expand...
Umm...and we have major restrictions on those things don't we?  Places that don't allow smoking, areas that are smoke free in public...DUI laws, ages necessary to purchase and consume.

Seems a pretty bad example of such dangers to public health to compare as the government puts many restrictions on their use.  And yes, I know that is not comparable to a right like a freedom to practice religion....but like with other rights, I don't believe the framers ever intended to mean such rights were completely unfettered...

 
jm192 said:
I think your response actually highlights the original point.  

Saying that comparing church to social justice marches shows a lack of awareness.

If you're religious, you believe in heaven and hell.  You feel compelled to worship, to tell others about the saving grace of Jesus Christ.  You see that as the battle for someone's everlasting soul.  

And...you're saying that that's the same as a football game in your eyes.  It's not important to you.  But social justice is.  

For Christians, Catholics, etc. their religion is the difference in heaven and hell.  It's MUCH more than a football game.  So...why do you or others get to decided that social justice marches are acceptable but expressing their faith isn't?
Click to expand...
The pope himself has said mass attendance is not necessary. Am I a bad Catholic? No, it is the Pope who is wrong. 
 

Is religion so fragile it can’t weather a few months of caution? Surely if God is so powerful he can work through zoom like the rest of us.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think far more about tribal politics. And much more also about the business of organized religion. How’s Joel Olsteen gonna afford those mansion payments and sports cars with empty arenas.....ERRR Churches. I mean does god live in these buildings? Is it like some kind of spiritual vending machine? 

 
Jackstraw said:
I think far more about tribal politics. And much more also about the business of organized religion. How’s Joel Olsteen gonna afford those mansion payments and sports cars with empty arenas.....ERRR Churches. I mean does god live in these buildings? Is it like some kind of spiritual vending machine? 
Click to expand...
Honestly...there are a few reasons churches are pushing for more in person.

-it really isn't the same online...I know it can be done, we do it and its ok...but it just is not the same as really going among other people.  Is that a good enough reason to risk health?  For us, it has not been.

-I think money does come in to play...Im quite positive collections at most of these churches has taken a big hit...both with people who just can't or won't give online, forget to...or because of the pandemic can't afford as much.  Their collections likely go up significantly if people are there in person.

 
Jackstraw said:
The pope himself has said mass attendance is not necessary. Am I a bad Catholic? No, it is the Pope who is wrong. 
 

Is religion so fragile it can’t weather a few months of caution? Surely if God is so powerful he can work through zoom like the rest of us.
Click to expand...
As I’ve said in other posts:  churches should go online only, maybe occasionally outdoors.

We shouldn’t legislate them into it.

There’s a difference in it not being necessary in the eyes of the pope and it being a violation in the eyes of the law.

 
sho nuff said:
Umm...and we have major restrictions on those things don't we?  Places that don't allow smoking, areas that are smoke free in public...DUI laws, ages necessary to purchase and consume.

Seems a pretty bad example of such dangers to public health to compare as the government puts many restrictions on their use.  And yes, I know that is not comparable to a right like a freedom to practice religion....but like with other rights, I don't believe the framers ever intended to mean such rights were completely unfettered...
Click to expand...
I think the Framers didn't consider such things argument is a tough one to make the crux of the whole thing.  

Perhaps they didn't consider pandemics.  But if they did, do we believe they would have said it's ok to close churches during certain times?  Historically, freedom of religion was a big part of the desire to break free of english rule.  They felt so strongly about protecting government's role in choosing how and where you worship they included it in the very first amendment.  

It's potentially a slippery slope to say government can restrict religious freedoms in certain situations.  Because then you just have to convince the courts the next situation is similar enough to the first.  And the third just has to be close enough to the second.  And suddenly the entire amendment is weakened.

As important as relgious freedom was, and how much importance they placed on protecting those religious freedoms from the government--I'm not certain they would have said "Well if things get bad enough, this no longer applies."  Because then the government just has to decide things are bad enough.  And the governed doesn't get a say in if that threshold has been met.  It provides a pathway to limit or remove religious freedoms.  

Would the framers have considered that we should make exceptions for situations such as pandemics?  Maybe.  But I don't think it's as easy as "they didn't consider this."  Because I think they saw a world in which a king, a governor, a mayor, etc. tried to limit religious freedoms for various reasons--and they aimed to protect against it.

 
Am I correct in concluding the decision to be limited to rules with fixed maximum numbers of people in places of worship? Meaning that pandemic rules based on a percentage of occupancy in places of worship are still permissible? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Juxtatarot said:
Am I correct in concluding the decision to be limited to rules with fixed maximum numbers of people in places of worship? Meaning that pandemic rules based on a percentage of occupancy in places of worship are still permissible? 
Click to expand...
This ruling was specific to the 10 and 25 person limits in orange and red zones in New York. 

I assume if other states have arbitrary rules like this they will be overturned as well. 

I dont foresee variable occupancy rules based on size being overturned, unless the majority was lying when they offered that as an alternative. 

 
parasaurolophus said:
This ruling was specific to the 10 and 25 person limits in orange and red zones in New York. 

I assume if other states have arbitrary rules like this they will be overturned as well. 

I dont foresee variable occupancy rules based on size being overturned, unless the majority was lying when they offered that as an alternative. 
Click to expand...
Thanks.  I read bits of this but not enough for a full understanding.  At the end of the day, this whole case seems rather trivial to me and not something worthy of the court's time.  The idea of having fixed numbers in spaces of variable size doesn't seem well thought out in the first place (IMO) and something that should have been sorted out at the state level.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Juxtatarot said:
Thanks.  I read bits of this but not enough for a full understanding.  At the end of the day, this whole case seems rather trivial to me and not something worthy of the court's time.  The idea of having fixed numbers in spaces of variable size doesn't seem well thought out in the first place (IMO) and something that should have been sorted out at the state level.
Click to expand...
Restricting constitutional rights are exactly what the court is for, and this easily qualified (SCOTUS is pretty picky about what it takes up, so this was definitely in that regime).  Significant judicial precedent can stem from "small" cases, though I'd argue that this wasn't a small item.

Yes, you'd think that a state could figure a density scheme rather than the one they did.  Restricting a 1,000 person synagogue to 10 people is asinine.  Obviously they didn't, thus SCOTUS.  (note NY state redid the rules subsequent to the filing and some justices dissented based on that, but the majority took it up to restrict any future reversion to these unfair quotas). 

 
Kao-Lin said:
Restricting constitutional rights are exactly what the court is for, and this easily qualified (SCOTUS is pretty picky about what it takes up, so this was definitely in that regime).  Significant judicial precedent can stem from "small" cases, though I'd argue that this wasn't a small item.

Yes, you'd think that a state could figure a density scheme rather than the one they did.  Restricting a 1,000 person synagogue to 10 people is asinine.  Obviously they didn't, thus SCOTUS.  (note NY state redid the rules subsequent to the filing and some justices dissented based on that, but the majority took it up to restrict any future reversion to these unfair quotas). 
Click to expand...
I think juxt was basically saying that it was really dumb the state let it get that far, not that the court should have ignored it. 

 
parasaurolophus said:
I think juxt was basically saying that it was really dumb the state let it get that far, not that the court should have ignored it. 
Click to expand...
You're likely right.  Yet again we are talking about Cuomo and NY - decision making from that office has been, let's just say challenged.  From his handling of nursing homes through now poor decisions have been replete throughout.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The court released 4 new opinions this morning, all 8-0 with Barrett not taking part.  These were the earliest cases of this term - argued in October.  Not much of broad interest in these, although one is interesting for me personally in that my professional life relates somewhat to the intersection of ERISA and state law.  Otherwise, unless you are interested in ERISA, the criminal prosecution of military service members, an arcane standing issue, or the rights of individuals to sue officials in their personal capacity for 1st amendment violations, there isn't much there today.

The one case of broad interest everyone is expecting soon is the census case - Trump v New York.  That case was argued Nov. 30 on an expedited basis, so we can expect ACB to take part.

 
Mark Joseph Stern@mjs_DC

Big news: The Supreme Court has declined to hear Box v. Henderson, turning away Indiana's request to roll back equal rights for same-sex parents. No noted dissents.

The plaintiffs are eight married lesbian couples in Indiana who used a sperm donor to conceive. When a married opposite-sex couple uses a sperm donor, Indiana recognizes the birth mother’s husband as the child’s parent. When a married same-sex couple does the same thing, however, the state refuses to list the birth mother’s wife as the child’s parent. In both instances, the second parent has no biological connection to the child; Indiana’s decision to extend parental rights to the nonbiological husbands of birth mothers, but not the wives of birth mothers, is sheer discrimination.

 
The U.S. Supreme Court will not take up Kansas’ petition seeking to re-establish a voting restriction crafted by former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.

By denying the state’s petition, the court upheld rulings by the U.S. Court for the District of Kansas and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that found Kansas’ proof of citizenship law to be unconstitutional.

The law, which went into effect in 2013, required prospective voters to provide a birth certificate, passport or other documentation to prove their status as citizens before they could register to vote, a measure that the law’s supporters said would prevent non-citizens from voting.

 
Sinn Fein said:
The U.S. Supreme Court will not take up Kansas’ petition seeking to re-establish a voting restriction crafted by former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.

By denying the state’s petition, the court upheld rulings by the U.S. Court for the District of Kansas and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that found Kansas’ proof of citizenship law to be unconstitutional.

The law, which went into effect in 2013, required prospective voters to provide a birth certificate, passport or other documentation to prove their status as citizens before they could register to vote, a measure that the law’s supporters said would prevent non-citizens from voting.
Click to expand...
I would have been very interested to hear the SCOTUS opinion on this. I may look up the Court of Appeals decision if I get ambitious.

Just curious - why is proof of citizenship a bad thing?

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
I would have been very interested to hear the SCOTUS opinion on this. I may look up the Court of Appeals decision if I get ambitious.

Just curious - why is proof of citizenship a bad thing?
Click to expand...
I did a (very) cursory look at this - I think the issue was that the law, as written, also removed people from the election rolls - many of whom were living, eligible voters - thus disenfranchising them for no legitimate reason.

 
Sinn Fein said:
NorvilleBarnes said:
I would have been very interested to hear the SCOTUS opinion on this. I may look up the Court of Appeals decision if I get ambitious.

Just curious - why is proof of citizenship a bad thing?
Click to expand...
I did a (very) cursory look at this - I think the issue was that the law, as written, also removed people from the election rolls - many of whom were living, eligible voters - thus disenfranchising them for no legitimate reason.
Click to expand...
From 10th Circuit (via KC Star):

“And, furthermore, if the Secretary is correct that Kansas’s recent history is sprinkled with some hotly contested, close elections such that he reasonably could have an especially keen interest in ensuring that every proper vote counts, we are hard-pressed to see how that interest is furthered by the DPOC law—a law that undisputedly has disenfranchised approximately 30,000 would-be Kansas voters who presumably would otherwise have been eligible to vote in such close elections,” the ruling states.

 
Sinn Fein said:
From 10th Circuit (via KC Star):

“And, furthermore, if the Secretary is correct that Kansas’s recent history is sprinkled with some hotly contested, close elections such that he reasonably could have an especially keen interest in ensuring that every proper vote counts, we are hard-pressed to see how that interest is furthered by the DPOC law—a law that undisputedly has disenfranchised approximately 30,000 would-be Kansas voters who presumably would otherwise have been eligible to vote in such close elections,” the ruling states.
Click to expand...
Wow. That's a LOT of people who are eligible to vote - unless you require proof of citizenship.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
They're apples-to-apples in the sense that they're both unambiguously protected by the first amendment and they're both unambiguously risky from a public health standpoint.

When somebody comes staggering into this thread fresh from the Twitter front lines with their takes about evil right-wingers who want their individual rights to take precedence over public health, it's reasonable to ask where they were back in June and if they would have supported similar restrictions on mass protests.  The fact that the probability of contracting covid at a church service and the probability of contracting covid at a protest aren't exactly the same to three significant digits doesn't change the underlying tension.  

Edit: More generally, it's kind of hard to see a sober, fair-minded person getting bent out of shape over a court ruling that says "You can regulate religious services, but those regulations need to be consistent with how you treat secular activities.  You guys didn't get that balance right -- please go back and correct this."  That's the sort of on-the-margin ruling that a reasonable person might disagree with, but it's a hard thing to get angry about.  When somebody comes flying in here full-throttle, it sounds as if they're responding to a ruling that they're imaging the court made as opposed to the ruling the court actually made.  I don't know how else to process the disproportionate anger from guys like @Jackstraw and @tommyGunZ who would normally not advocate trading our essential liberties for security.
Click to expand...
I think it was Gorsuch who kind of started the hyperbole. 
 

It’s a tough case. It’s refreshing to see a free-exercise case that is actually about free-exercise. But I think the most hyperbolic reactions have come against the NY regulations. They consistently use apples to oranges comparisons to try to insinuate that religious services were being singled out (which every justice agreed they couldn’t be). 
 

It matters to the extent that the regulations did not apllyb criteria related to religious beliefs. Mega churches weren’t treated differently than Madison Square Garden. 

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
Wow. That's a LOT of people who are eligible to vote - unless you require proof of citizenship.
Click to expand...
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12638690193868354761&q=fish+v.+schwab&hl=en&as_sdt=4000006&as_vis=1

This is the 10th Circuit opinion - lengthy.

This litigation was originally filed in 2016 over a 2013 law.

This was the 2nd trip to the 10 Circuit - effectively finding that the Kansas law was pre-empted by a federal voter registration law

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
How The Activist MSM Is Burying Alleged SCOTUS Kavanaugh Assassination Attempt (5/12/22 6:22 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
Boston
Boston
Max Power
Eric Swalwell tweets thread
2 3
Replies
132
Views
4K
Max Power
Max Power
(HULK)
Non-Partisan Funny Things in Politics
Replies
4
Views
619
dgreen
dgreen

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Top