Late Friday, the SCOTUS ruled that California must allow it's churches to open, but amazingly, allowed the state to restrict activity and attendance.
We discussed the First Amendment on Moment of Clarity Saturday and this topic came up.
Most of my information comes from ScotusBlog, where I often go to get informed on recent rulings.
I'll boil it down for you.
SCOTUS refused to hear cases like this eight months ago.
They heard this one.
Michigan was under similar lockdowns as California last year and my friends William Wagner and David Kallman pursued a suit against Governess Gretchen Whitmer in Federal Court, wherein she caved immediately before a hearing took place. Yet California remained on lockdown.
Of the justices, Thomas and Gorsuch wanted immediate full relief. No limits.
Oddly, Alito wanted 30 days for California to present evidence on limits to attendance and singing(!) but voted for immediate opening.
Barret felt that since the plaintiffs only challenged attendance, limits and restrictions on singing were not argued for, so she didn't opine that they should be lifted. They didn't say "Simon Says".
Kavanaugh was in agreement with her.
So that's six for opening but only 2.5 for no limits on attendance and singing.
Robert's "deference" is reflected in the opinion of the three leftist/progressive/authoritarian justices.
They felt that as Justices, they are not scientists and should defer to the "science" regarding denying the God-given rights of citizens respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
I'm just a citizen, but it seems readily apparent to myself and a number of others that "prohibiting the free exercise thereof", such as not allowing chanting or signing, would be, let's see, what's the word..."unconstitutional" comes to mind.
So, thankfully, Donald J Trump appointed three SCOTUS justices who actually knew what the Constitution says.
The "justices" that defer to the "science", and it must be asked "Which science?", are basically admitting that they support an administrative state of technocrats with no restraint by our Constitution.
This should be grounds for their removal from office, but I suggest we wait until after Xi Biden is removed from office, shortly after 2022.
There is another first amendment issue here. The establishment clause should forbid the state from establishing this religion of "science", a faith in a set of outcomes that looks for a source of support.
There are many denominations (sets of belief) of science. Why is the state endorsing one over the other, or any?