Trump Supreme Court Justices Protect Religious Freedom from Cuomo
By Daniel Greenfield

It’s horrifying, shocking, and outrageous that a case that trampled on the First Amendment had to take this long to get to the Supreme Court, or that if President Trump and Republican Senate members (yes, even most of the RINOs) hadn’t stood strong and voted to confirm Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the precedent would stand that Freedom of Religion can be suspended at any time and religious groups can be targeted by Democrat politicians.

Because Roberts, once again, voted with the Left against religious freedom.

But this time, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joining Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and the pre-existing conservative justice stood 5-4 for religious freedom against Cuomo.

Something that is all the more relevant on Thanksgiving.

“But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten. The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty,” the ruling states.

“Government is not free to disregard the First Amendment in times of crisis,” the majority decision states, and then lights into Cuomo.

“At the same time, the Governor has chosen to impose no capacity restrictions on certain businesses he considers “essential.” And it turns out the businesses the Governor considers essential include hardware stores, acupuncturists, and liquor stores. Bicycle repair shops, certain signage companies, accountants, lawyers, and insurance agents are all essential too. So, at least according to the Governor, it may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians. Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience?”

That is exactly the point.

We’re being ruled by irreligious Democrats for whom religion doesn’t matter or is offensive. Giving them total control effectively eliminates religious freedoms.

“People may gather inside for extended periods in bus stations and airports, in laundromats and banks, in hardware stores and liquor shops. No apparent reason exists why people may not gather, subject to identical restrictions, in churches or synagogues, especially when religious institutions have made plain that they stand ready, able, and willing to follow all the safety precautions required of “essential” businesses and perhaps more besides. The only explanation for treating religious places differently seems to be a judgment that what happens there just isn’t as “essential” as what happens in secular spaces. Indeed, the Governor is remarkably frank about this: In his judgment laundry and liquor, travel and tools, are all “essential” while traditional religious exercises are not. That is exactly the kind of discrimination the First Amendment forbids.”

The ruling also makes it clear that the ongoing suspension of the Bill of Rights cannot last.

“Even if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical.”

It makes it clear that Cuomo’s lockdowns are unconstitutional.

“But none of us are rabbis wondering whether future services will be disrupted as the High Holy Days were, or priests preparing for Christmas.
Nor may we discount the burden on the faithful who have lived for months under New York’s unconstitutional regime unable to attend religious services.”

And reasserts the primacy of the constitution.

“Saying so now will dispel, as well, misconceptions about the role of the Constitution in times of crisis, which have already been permitted to persist for too long.”

“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.”

Except that was almost the world we lived in. If RGB hadn’t kicked the bucket and if ACB hadn’t been confirmed, we would be living in an unconstitutional world.

This decision ought to be an urgent reminder of what is at stake if Democrats succeed in packing the Supreme Court.

Original Article



Source link

Write a Comment

  • (will not be published)