That’s an interesting thesis, one that can be tested by reviewing the last several 5-4 SCOTUS rulings, for if they’ve leaned toward the wrong legal decisions…
Let’s hope they go the way of the whigs sooner rather than later. I just hope it’s not to late to salvage this country. I’m afraid it is, though.
I feel a need for more impeachments and a few removals. Any judge or justice ruling against public health and safety criminal displays contempt toward the populace; they must be booted.
ftfy. I would say that it would at least slow them down a bit, but I suspect the first agenda item for a Republican-majority house under a Democratic president will be to draft and vote on articles of impeachment, especially if it creates a path to remove any Supreme Court picks.
This was basically Roberts’ argument. As long as restrictions are applied universally versus singling out any particular protected institution the claim of first amendment violations doesn’t apply.
That’s… actually a perfectly reasonable argument as far as I’m concerned. That really makes me wonder what kind of reasoned cause for dissent there could have been. Since nobody else released an opinion we can only guess.
Of course that’s a perfectly reasonable argument, that’s why I’m so suspicious with it coming from a conservative SCOTUS judge. It makes me wonder what kind of angle they’re working to screw people over with it.
True - a Democratic President facing a republican house and senate could be unjustly removed, but unless that president was also convicted by a court once impeached then the republicans would not have basis for enacting the appointment removal I am suggesting.
Now it would not surprise me if the republicans would try it anyway - we saw them deny a legitimately appointed justice already. The GOP already flaunts the rules to their advantage. The Democrats have to set the stage for making that a big mistake for them - by punishing them severely for what’s gone on the past 4 years.
Ah, I missed that you were requiring conviction in court. I guess we’d have to figure out some criminal threshold - and still I’d worry about politicization, given how easy it is to commit felonies.
Side question: If Trump ever did get arrested, do you think there’s any chance of an impartial jury, which would be his constitutional right?
What strikes me as really weird about this ruling is that the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion seem to differ on basic matters of fact; which I (perhaps naively) would have assumed would be hashed out well before the Supreme Court would bother taking a second look at it.
I’m not a level 15 legalmancer or anything; but it doesn’t even look like there is a disagreement about the law or about what precedent says the first amendment requires; just a disagreement about whether a church is more like a movie theater or more like a supermarket. Majority says that churches are similar to movie theaters and concerts which are similarly regulated; and dissimilar to grocery stores and laundromats which are not. Dissent says that the group of ‘similar secular businesses’ includes some of the ones dissimilarly regulated(love the sniffy reference to pot dispensaries guys…) and so the restriction is unacceptable.
Throwing a bunch of high-end judges at a question that’s basically about occupant density and airflow seems…counterproductive.
The majority ruling takes the position that:
Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on
places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with
the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Similar
or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular
gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings,
spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large
groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time. And the Order exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery
stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither
congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for
The dissenting opinion is that:
In response to the COVID–19 health crisis, California has
now limited attendance at religious worship services to 25%
of building capacity or 100 attendees, whichever is lower.
The basic constitutional problem is that comparable secular
businesses are not subject to a 25% occupancy cap, including factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail
stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops,
bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries.
We survived a civil war. We never healed from it, but we survived it. This, too, shall pass, though I doubt I’ll see any healing in what remains of my life time, which honestly I have to admit is heart breaking. I had such high hopes for our progress when I was in my twenties, and it’s been all backward steps with a few incremental changes (gay marriage being the one big one I can be proud we achieved).
We lost the peace and had another century of white supremacy.
I hope you’re right, but hoping will not do anything for us. We have to do the hard work if we don’t want to end up as a fascist dictatorship.
There are a number of people on the left, including me and the ACLU, that think this was decided correctly. The other side is directly arguing for censorship of a political movie. That’s not a slippery slope, that’s the end of the slope.
Better way of putting it for sure.
Let’s get to work.
I can’t wait for the day when Roberts gets the sense and the balls to vote against something that Cheetolini wants, and the Spoiled Brat in Chief throws a tantrum and threatens to fire him.
Yes, this too shall pass. And until it does, how many poor people must suffer and die because scarce resources are being diverted into 1%er self aggrandizement schemes, how many of our alliances will crumble, how much of our standing in the eyes of the rest of the world will we lose, how many of our rights will be trampled underfoot, how much will surveillance and police power be increased, how far will the pandemic spread, how much money that is desperately needed for social services be pissed away on “walls” that are as useful as boar tits, how many organizations that serve important purposes be wrecked because effective people who know what they’re doing are replaced with soulless trained dogs who have no skills other than licking Trump’s ass, how many children will be turned into knuckle-dragging cheap labor units by the Republican party’s war on education, how much corruption will slide by because inspectors are replaced with yes-men, how many riots will there be until something real is finally done about getting rid of policemen whose main qualification for their job is grunting “Murica!”, how many people will be murdered by racist skinhead neo-nazi white supremacists, and how many minds and souls will be warped hopelessly forever by the right wing’s war on truth, before it does pass?
The constitution doesn’t fix the size of the Suprime Court, and in the past it has been different…so a future President could add 3 seats to the court. A dangerous game as it can be done again and again, but it is a “valid” move.
Exactly right. I’ve heard the idea of adding more justices numerous times, but if a Democratic president were to do that, sure as shit the next Republican president would add twice as many. It would be a never-ending expansion of the Supreme Court, which might provide a temporary salve to some issues but would surely create more problems down the line.
As a southern christian?
Given the shenanigans surrounding the suprime court I had assumed they’d be a republican rubber stamper but for once common sense wins out.
Then again considering people believe all this will magically evaporate if ‘libby leftard wins’ genuinely feeling this is nothing more than political ‘because they coudln’t get trump on impeachment’ hope for common sense in the face of these astroturf protests and wingnught mindjobs is low.
So seeing this bit of sanity in insane times is refreshing.
Its has been done, and done again and again - look up the history of it. But the number of justices is changed by Congress, not the president.
Originally - 6
1807 - 7
1837 - 9
1863 - 10
1866 - 8
1869 - 9
So nothing magic about 9.
It is not surprising that Thomas and Alito and Kavanaugh and Gorsuch never ever surprise us.
There is no doubt that, should it becomes politicized, such that the necrotic SCOTUSes are made aware what the “conservatively correct” choice is, then churches would be ruled as not subject to fire regulations, reversing any and all precedents.