How did the same SCOTUS who let Trump have his Muslim ban and allow curfews, block church COVID attendance restrictions.

[HomerJS]

In a country that is supposed to separate religion from the state allow churches to be treated differently from bars and grocery stores. Remember this is the same SCOTUS who claims to be so concerned about religious freedom allow Trump to have his Muslim ban. SCOTUS has never barred state officials from enacting curfews when public safety is at stake. Why is this deadly virus being treated differently??

Religious freedom: Supreme Court blocks COVID-19 limits on NY churches (usatoday.com)

 

[Sunburn74]

No one quite knows what this ruling means. Is it something very limited and specific to this case or is it something that more broadly will set precedent? A lot of the arguments out forth seemed to be specific to the case, things that a well crafted law could get around but again no one really knows.

What I find most concerning isn't the ruling in and of itself but rather that the SCOTUS so directly changed direction after ruling just the other way a few months ago in a nearly identical case. This is very very troublesome because it implies to me that the newly energized conservatives on the court who have been itching for fights will not be following the principle of precedence and rather will more or less become the judicial activists they have so long desired to be. They will not be respecting the decisions made by prior courts I think.

 

[hal2kilo]

In a country that is supposed to separate religion from the state allow churches to be treated differently from bars and grocery stores. Remember this is the same SCOTUS who claims to be so concerned about religious freedom allow Trump to have his Muslim ban. SCOTUS has never barred state officials from enacting curfews when public safety is at stake. Why is this deadly virus being treated differently??

Religious freedom: Supreme Court blocks COVID-19 limits on NY churches (usatoday.com)

I'm sure they will get a chance to expose their religious hypocrisy not to far off in the future.

 

[ivwshane]

No one quite knows what this ruling means. Is it something very limited and specific to this case or is it something that more broadly will set precedent? A lot of the arguments out forth seemed to be specific to the case, things that a well crafted law could get around but again no one really knows.

What I find most concerning isn't the ruling in and of itself but rather that the SCOTUS so directly changed direction after ruling just the other way a few months ago in a nearly identical case. This is very very troublesome because it implies to me that the newly energized conservatives on the court who have been itching for fights will not be following the principle of precedence and rather will more or less become the judicial activists they have so long desired to be. They will not be respecting the decisions made by prior courts I think.

They haven’t been following precedence for decades now. They’ve been activists for just as long and they got away with it because the right hammered the notion that it was the left that were the activist judges.

 

[blackangst1]

Because there was never a Muslim ban.

 

[nickqt]

Because there was never a Muslim ban.

Your handlers are very proud of you.

 

[blackangst1]

Your handlers are very proud of you.

Question for you. The original countries listed on the travel ban are Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Sudan and Somalia. Amongest those countries there are approximately 5.2million Christians, all living in terrible countries to be a Christian, some illegally. If1% of those 5.2million applied for a visa, you think they'd get approved? Im not going to derail this thread any more with this, but the answer is no.

 

[Moonbeam]

They haven’t been following precedence for decades now. They’ve been activists for just as long and they got away with it because the right hammered the notion that it was the left that were the activist judges.

Activism is always that which challenges unconscious assumptions

 

[nickqt]

Question for you. The original countries listed on the travel ban are Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Sudan and Somalia. Amongest those countries there are approximately 5.2million Christians, all living in terrible countries to be a Christian, some illegally. If1% of those 5.2million applied for a visa, you think they'd get approved? Im not going to derail this thread any more with this, but the answer is no.

Since 2017 the US rarely lets in 50,000 refugees from everywhere in a year, so the answer is no, but not for the reason your handlers have trained you to repeat here.

 

[blackangst1]

Since 2017 the US rarely lets in 50,000 refugees from everywhere in a year, so the answer is no, but not for the reason your handlers have trained you to repeat here.

Are you unable to talk in theory based on facts?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Muslims are heathens, case closed.

 

[MtnMan]

Amy Coney Barrett

 

[fskimospy]

Because there was never a Muslim ban.

Trump himself said the purpose of his action was to prevent Muslims from entering the United States.

 

[blackangst1]

Trump himself said the purpose of his action was to prevent Muslims from entering the United States.

He also said he was responsible for the vaccine.

Can you answer my question on post #7?

 

[fskimospy]

He also said he was responsible for the vaccine.

So to be clear your argument is that Trump was trying to mislead the country into thinking he wanted to unconstitutionally ban an entire religion of people from entering the country?

Can you answer my question on post #7?

They would not be approved, but I’m unclear as to why that matters. You can’t actually effectively ban people on the basis of religion because people can just lie. The most effective way to ban Muslims is to ban travel from countries where there are a lot of Muslims, which is what he did.

 

[blackangst1]

So to be clear your argument is that Trump was trying to mislead the country into thinking he wanted to unconstitutionally ban an entire religion of people from entering the country?


They would not be approved, but I’m unclear as to why that matters. You can’t actually effectively ban people on the basis of religion because people can just lie. The most effective way to ban Muslims is to ban travel from countries where there are a lot of Muslims, which is what he did.

Whatever you say.

 

[fskimospy]

Whatever you say.

It’s not what I say, it’s what the guy who enacted the ban said!

 

[woolfe9998]

It’s not what I say, it’s what the guy who enacted the ban said!

And Giuliani who gave him the idea of making it a ban from "dangerous countries" so it wouldn't look like the Muslim ban that Trump actually wanted and had proposed during his campaign.

Giuliani: Trump asked me how to do a Muslim ban ‘legally’

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) said in an interview on Saturday that President Trump had previously asked him about legally implementing a “Muslim ban.”But Giuliani then d…

thehill.com

 

[nickqt]

It’s not what I say, it’s what the guy who enacted the ban said!

Listen, his handlers have told him the correct answer is that it wasn't a Muslim ban. It doesn't matter what Trump wanted, or what Trump got passed.

 

[HomerJS]

Question for you. The original countries listed on the travel ban are Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Sudan and Somalia. Amongest those countries there are approximately 5.2million Christians, all living in terrible countries to be a Christian, some illegally. If1% of those 5.2million applied for a visa, you think they'd get approved? Im not going to derail this thread any more with this, but the answer is no.

Silly goose. You think a slight changing of phraseology made it not a Muslim ban?

So why in this country where government and religion are allegedly separate are churches granted dispensations a nightclub or bar can't get?

 

[blackangst1]

Silly goose. You think a slight changing of phraseology made it not a Muslim ban?

So why in this country where government and religion are allegedly separate are churches granted dispensations a nightclub or bar can't get?

Wut

 

[HomerJS]

Judge Sotomayor agrees with my point. State officials make restrictions all the time for the sake of public safety. Why should churches be exempt??

Sotomayor says Supreme Court's Covid decision will 'exacerbate' suffering in fiery dissent

 

[fskimospy]

Judge Sotomayor agrees with my point. State officials make restrictions all the time for the sake of public safety. Why should churches be exempt??

Sotomayor says Supreme Court's Covid decision will 'exacerbate' suffering in fiery dissent

While this is obviously an incredibly dangerous ruling that is illogical on its face it does hold with recent Supreme Court precedent that religious people can pick and choose what laws they feel like following.