Supreme Court strong-arms California judge to follow its ruling exempting churches from COVID restri

[alwaysinasnit]

Source: Rawstory

One week ago today the U.S. Supreme Court sided with a group of New York churches and synagogues, overruling Governor Cuomo and declaring that even in a deadly pandemic that now is breaking new records, houses of worship are exempt from coronavirus restrictions on attendance maximums.

Now, in what experts are calling an “essentially unprecedented” and “unusual move,” the Supreme Court has just basically pressured a California trial judge to obey its ruling in the New York case.

Critics likened the New York ruling by the new Trump conservative-majority justices to “The Handmaid’s Tale,” where fascism, religion, and the Bible trump the law and common sense. Justice Sonia Sotomayor slammed her conservative colleagues in her dissent, accusing them of playing a “deadly game.”

snip...

On Thursday the Supreme Court sent a California church’s request for “injunctive relief,” meaning a request it rule immediately in its favor, to a federal appeals court. But, in the unusual move, the one-paragraph unsigned order directed the appeals court to send the case back to a lower court “for further consideration in light of Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo,” the New York case it decided last week.

snip...

Read more: https://www.rawstory.com/2020/12/supreme-court-strong-arms-california-judge-to-follow-its-ruling-exempting-churches-from-restrictions/

[napi21]

1. I think that's just fine. If the people attending those churches are so ignorant that they

don't know a virus can spread inside a church as easily as anywhere elswe, then they'll just haver to get sick as their proof.

[Liberty Belle]

2. No, because they infect others - my daughter works in a COVID ward. Padlock the damn churches!

We have Skyline megachurch in our area that openly defied shutdown orders by our state and county, continuing to hold indoor services and not require masks.

Today the pastor announced he's had COVID for 2 weeks - and hid it, until he got so sick he decided he needs prayers.

How many got infected and have spread it all over the community, to grocery store workers, healthcare workers, their own family members, and everyone else they encountered?

The Supreme Court did NOT say there can be no enforcement of health rules on churches -- only that the rules can't discriminate -- you can't allow people to shop at grocery stores, Walmart, go to theaters or bars and yet ban all indoor services at churches or synagogues. It is reasonable certainly to require social distancing and masks, at minimum, with limited capacity, and to enforce those limits.

[Chainfire]

6. The ruling may kill two birds with one stone.

[LiberalFighter]

3. Unsigned? Huh!

[former9thward]

9. Those type of orders from the SC are always unsigned.

It is not a formal decision that has been argued before the court.

[doc03]

4. Gawwd will protect them. If they get it it is because they don't believe nt

[msongs]

5. rawstory is not a source nt

[elleng]

7. From whence Raw Story got it's article, it appears.

https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2020/12/supreme-court-strong-arms-california-judge-to-follow-its-ruling-exempting-churches-from-covid-restrictions/

[alwaysinasnit]

8. Thanks elleng!

[onenote]

10. As often is the case, Raw Story is more hyperbolic than informative

First, the Raw Story article neglects to mention that there were no written dissents from this order, which one might expect if it was so outrageous.

Second, Raw Story ignores the fact that California specifically suggested to the Court that it take the action it took -- which seems like a pretty significant fact.

Third, while granting certiorari before judgment is unusual, its hardly unprecedented. Cert before judgment was granted last year in the Census/Citizenship question case.

[alwaysinasnit]

11. elleng provided a link to the source material (see previous responses above).

Also, I am confused about your reference that "California specifically suggested to the Court that it take the action it took." It was not California but rather a California church's request.

"On Thursday the Supreme Court sent a California church’s request for “injunctive relief,” meaning a request it rule immediately in its favor, to a federal appeals court. But, in the unusual move, the one-paragraph unsigned order directed the appeals court to send the case back to a lower court “for further consideration in light of Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo,” the New York case it decided last week."

[onenote]

12. You are mistaken. Follow the links.

The California church moved the Supreme Court for injunctive relief against California. California opposed, but suggested that it had no objection to the Court doing exactly what it did.

This is from the State of California's response:

Link to tweet

/photo/1

[alwaysinasnit]

13. Thank you for providing more info, however, I am now even more confused.

"California moved the Supreme Court for injunctive relief against California. California opposed, but suggested that it had no objection to the Court doing exactly what it did."

So, if I understand your statement above, California moved the SC for injunctive relief against itself, and then opposed that injunctive relief request. I feel like I am missing something here. I apologize if this seems obtuse.

[onenote]

14. Sorry. Typed fast. The California church moved for the injunction

[keithbvadu2]

15. Attendance means cash flow... more important than the lives of the congregants.

Attendance means cash flow... more important than the lives of the congregants.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9009999/California-megachurch-pastor-58-dies-covid-huge-outbreak-congregation.html

California megachurch pastor, 58, dies from COVID-19 a week after being hospitalized as his congregation continues to hold services

[bucolic_frolic]

17. Deaths mean funeral revenue

Death is a growth business to them

[LiberalLovinLug]

16. Can a Supreme Court be sued for endangering the lives of Americans?

[Polybius]

22. No

Their job is to rule on what they find Constitutional and unConstitutional. Penalizing them for a vote sets an extremely dangerous precedent.

[perdita9]

18. If you want to kill someone in the U.S. all you need to do is...

...have a "Praise Jesus" poster hanging on your wall. That's how I read this ruling from 5 pro-life hypocrites

[DallasNE]

19. Let Me See If I Understand This Correctly

SCOTUS has declaring that even in a deadly pandemic that now is breaking new records, houses of worship are exempt from coronavirus restrictions on attendance maximums.

If the Church is above the law on Covid restrictions, what else are they above the law on? Could the Church be exempt from carrying car insurance? Could the Mormon Church bring back polygamies? What about the old Blue laws? Indeed, could this invalidate convictions against pedophile Priests?

I don't know where you draw the line in the sand on restrictions or even if they can? What a can of worms this SCOTUS decision is.

[hardluck]

24. No. That's not what the Court held.

[kairos12]

20. As they make their rulings from socially distanced locations. SCOTUS is disgusting and

hypocritical. They place religious "rights" above all. They endorse death cults.

[Seiad]

21. So now, all of a sudden, precedents matter?

Just like rethugs do, we need to start flooding the SCOTUS with cases that keep them busy having to overturn lower court rulings. Just keep suing....

[FBaggins]

23. That's incredibly bad legal analysis

The first paragraph does not accurately describe the recent SCOTUS ruling... nor is it at all unusual (let alone unprecedented) for the court to tell lower courts to reevaluate their rulings in light of recent SCOTUS decisions.

As evidence that there's nothing unusual here... note that California anticipated the need for the lower court to reconsider its decision and agreed to it in their filing.

[Politicub]

25. Some religious people really don't understand the concept of free will.

God gave them a brain and free will for a reason — maybe one of those reasons is to protect themselves and community in the time of a pandemic? Maybe? Possibly?

I’m a non-believer after many years of church before I left for college. The responsibilities of believers — when it comes to free will — are being ignored by themselves in the service of selfishness.