Supreme Court blocks Cuomo's orders against religious gatherings

Off-Topic
#1

The Supreme Court ruled Governor Cuomo’s executive order to restrict church attendance is unconstitutional. It was a 5-4 ruling. Roberts sided with the Liberals. He is becoming the new Anthony Kennedy on the court. I no longer consider him a conservative but it appears there are 5 reliable conservatives, 3 liberals, and one moderate. So at least Roberts doesn’t appear to be a swing vote anymore because if he sides with the liberals it will still be 5-4 and that is why some think if the Democrats win the senate after the runoffs in Georgia they will attempt to expand the number of judges on the Supreme Court so they can pack it and get rid of the conservative majority. The number of judges has traditionally been 9 but the Constitution doesn’t limit the number to 9.

We can thank Trump for appointing what appear to be 3 solid conservatives and the Supreme Court may our only hope to keep the liberals from running amok.

#2

Kavanaugh has sometimes voted with the liberals as well. Roberts is a never Trumper backing Bush. Sad…

#3

Both of your sentences are partial misstatements of the statements coming from the Supreme Court.

The 5 -4 majority ordered the state to stop enforcing the attendance limits while the challengers continue to litigate the issue at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and, if necessary, return to the Supreme Court for a final decision on the merits.

Cuomo has already altered his executive order, so the 5-4 decision has essentially no effect.
It only allows for other Federal Courts to see how the nine judges who oversee the federal courts to see which way the wind is blowing.

Roberts, who acknowledged that the restrictions in these cases “may well” violate the free exercise clause but maintained that the court did not need to decide that “serious and difficult question” now because the attendance limits no longer apply to the challengers.
Cuomo already altered his order so Roberts simply said that the Supreme Court does not need to intervene at this point. He in fact implied that he will vote against Cuomo should the Governor of New York choose to appeal the Second Circuit’s decision, if in fact the Second Circuit chooses to ignore his rather heavy hint that they should find that the Governor issued an order that violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
I haven’t looked at the briefings in the case, but I suspect that the Second Circuit could weasel out of the decision entirely by asking the Court of Appeals of the State of New York to rule on the constitutionality of the Governor’s order vis-a-vis the New York State Constitution. I don’t remember which case it was earlier this year but there was another Federal Circuit that sidestepped the issue using the same procedure.

1 Like
#4

Thanks for the clarification. I am glad Roberts seems to be of the same mind as the 5 conservatives on the court. I scanned through the article pretty quickly and apparently missed the part about the restrictions no longer applying to the plaintiffs in that they resided in an area no longer under restrictions. I read another article later where Cuomo said the ruling was irrelevant for the reasons you stated. I think it was relevant because it does give us some idea as to how at least 5 of the justices view the 1st amendment in regard to freedom of religion.

#5

What Grasshopper misinterpreted what the Supreme Court said? Oh the shock of it all! LOL

I think Justice Gorsuch summed up why SCOTUS ruled the way they did:

“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,” Gorsuch wrote.

SCOTUS basically said you can not have to standards during a pandemic, one for businesses and ones for churches.

Now if Governor Cumo laid out restrictions equally across the board, then I do not think SCOTUS would have ruled the same way.

#6

You miss the big picture. This is a landmark decision for religious liberty for the entire country. Very much needed in all 50 states, especially blue states.

#7

You must have missed the part of the decision that SCOTUS referred it back to the lower court…

This is not a landmark decision, they are saying you can not treat one group different than another group.

IF the Governor shut down everything, then the court would not have made this decision.

#8

It sets up other Governors for successful lawsuits. It is a landmark decision.