Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Towlie

(5,318 posts)
Fri Nov 27, 2020, 01:00 PM Nov 2020

It's frustrating when a Justice writes in a dissenting opinion something that's so obvious that...

... you want to scream "well, no shit!"

Sotomayor Calls Supreme Court’s N.Y. Pandemic Ruling A ‘Deadly Game’

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in a withering dissent that the Supreme Court’s ruling blocking COVID-19 restrictions for religious services in New York “will only exacerbate the Nation’s suffering.”

more...

For a while now freedom of religion has meant taxpayer-funded religious events, the right to force "In God We Trust" onto our money and "Under God" into our pledge, and the right to force us to cover the taxes not paid by our communities' freeloading churches. Now it also means the right to spread a potentially lethal disease.
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
It's frustrating when a Justice writes in a dissenting opinion something that's so obvious that... (Original Post) Towlie Nov 2020 OP
Yeah, and this is not a valid 1 amendment ruling. flamin lib Nov 2020 #1
True but what I found most interesting was the "tone" of the opinions tymorial Nov 2020 #2
My sister-in-law, a devout catholic, will not be attending church until the danger of infection is katmondoo Nov 2020 #3
Then there's drama queen Gorsuch Blues Heron Nov 2020 #4
every word true. but you only hit stopdiggin Nov 2020 #5

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)
1. Yeah, and this is not a valid 1 amendment ruling.
Fri Nov 27, 2020, 01:08 PM
Nov 2020

1st is about selecting religious institutions and treating them differently from society at large. The NYC restriction was on everybody so no segregation.

tymorial

(3,433 posts)
2. True but what I found most interesting was the "tone" of the opinions
Fri Nov 27, 2020, 01:37 PM
Nov 2020

It isn't terribly uncommon for opinions to contain comments and criticism directed at other justices on the court, especially where dissenting opinions exist. The level of animosity was pretty striking (unsurprisingly from the dissent) given the abject hypocrisy over the ignoring of the "Muslim" travel ban decision. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh however came out swinging against the dissenters with Gorsuch paying particular attention to Roberts. There definitely seemed to be more than a disagreement between colleagues.

katmondoo

(6,454 posts)
3. My sister-in-law, a devout catholic, will not be attending church until the danger of infection is
Fri Nov 27, 2020, 02:10 PM
Nov 2020

over. This Supreme Court is showing it will not be for the American people. It will be very Trumpy in its decisions.

Blues Heron

(5,926 posts)
4. Then there's drama queen Gorsuch
Fri Nov 27, 2020, 02:26 PM
Nov 2020

"the constitution's under attack- to the ramparts! QUICK! LET THEM SPREAD IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!!!!"

what a joke of a legal mind on that fucking twit.

stopdiggin

(11,234 posts)
5. every word true. but you only hit
Fri Nov 27, 2020, 03:31 PM
Nov 2020

some of the least injurious examples of what "religious freedom" has been allowed to inflict on the public good. And be sure to stand by. More -- much more to come.
----- --- --- -----

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»It's frustrating when a J...