Sunday, February 7, 2021


 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.

Concerning singing and limits, Roberts said “federal courts owe significant deference to politically accountable officials with the ‘background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.’”, but he felt the churches should open.

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?


  1. There are many denominations (sets of belief) of science. Why is the state endorsing one over the other, or any?

    "DO AS WE SAY" is the only "science" they follow and unfortunately their science is always shifting to conform to their chosen narrative.

  2. It looks like today you may better understand my 3 part warning in 2014 of the need to fight this.

    You are attesting to what happens when sufficient government officials at all levels defer to a god they call science, establishing a theocracy in violation of our 1st Amendment. And as you noted, they can choose to be arbitrary about which "science" serves The Party's interest.

    For those who will still insist that science is not a supernatural supreme entity and so cannot be something religion can be based upon, I simply show them the dictionary says they are wrong. Religion: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

    And today you demonstrated that science is deemed so supreme that it can be used to limit and penalize other religions.

    1. As we see, I was wasting my breath then, and it seems nothing has changed. Pray that our merciful God will forgive all who've been misled. How could they not be? Idiotic ideas broadcast 24/7 on 2 zillion channels and a handful of individuals who say "wait that's nuts and here's why" are drowned out.

  3. "thankfully, Donald J Trump appointed three SCOTUS justices who actually knew what the Constitution says."

    A lot of good it has done us, sadly.

    1. Well, it did us good in this one, and I trust with some of the 40 election cases coming up, it's going to continue to do us some good.

  4. Thanks for breaking all this nonsense down into English. I don't understand legal matters and just do what God's word tells me to do. THAT I understand. *wink*
    Blessings to you and Sherrie my friends.

  5. Thanks for Sharing such an amazing article. Keep working... Your Site is very nice, and it's very helping us.. this post is unique and interesting, thank you for sharing this awesome information

    Neverskip Parent Portal App |Neverskip Parent App | Neverskip Parent Portal Login

  6. In a nation of 330-million people, there are numerous (too many to count) conflicting points of view and interests. This is probably why we have courts; it relieves pressure on country sheriffs having to arrest people for first degree murder. There was a time when we would agree on matters concerning our unalienable rights. This began to change when social justice warriors all decided that their rights were more important than anyone else’s … and of course, the loudest squeak gets the oil. Remarkably, all of these social justice types graduated from Looney Tunes University and Part Time Law School, where Justice Kagan is an alumni — but it doesn’t take a degree in law to make one aware that all of our institutions have been politicized to the point that makes them no longer trustworthy or valuable to a thinking society. Today, science follows the axiom governing computers: garbage in, garbage out.

    On the Constitutional merits of this case, it hardly makes judicial sense to allow bars and strip joints to remain open, while discriminating against church assemblies, prayer groups, or choir practices. I will be willing to wager a candy bar that the California Soviet remains open for business.

    Judge Roberts (who is not a particularly gifted justice), wasn’t wrong to suggest “deference” to an elected head of state — particularly if you agree that it is important for “the people” to choose their own poison in political leadership. Californians have chosen Newsom. Not my idea of clear thinking, but I did mention that we’re talking about California … it’s how the roll.

    Reading the state constitution, approved by the people at the polls, you will notice that the governor of Weirdifornia has extraordinary powers to act in matters of public health and safety. This makes perfect sense. What doesn’t make sense is Gov. Newsom’s anti-religion biases on an issue that is (a) controversial within the scientific community, and (b) flies in the face of our unalienable rights. In the case of (a), it controversial because science has been politicized to such a degree that no one believes its findings (see also, and in the case of (b), what chief executive doesn’t understand our individual rights of assembly and association? I suspect Newsom is one of those arrogant “whiz kids” who thinks he knows better than almost everyone. Church-goers, for example, must be restricted in their association, but millions of homeless people are free to come and go as they please. Dumb.

    1. I get concerned at an interpretation of the First that says that "Congress" may not, but a governor or state legislature may.

  7. Thankfully they stepped up! Good on them, and Roberts has once again shown his true colors!

    1. Right now our only hope is in God and the courts.