Earlier, I brought you the news that the Supreme Court struck down New York’s cap on attendance at places of worship.
From that decision, NBC News published this:
In Covid-19 regulations case, Sotomayor dissent claps back at Supreme Court majority
I fucking hate the phrase clap-back.
According to Merriam-Webster:
Not to be confused with a garden-variety diss, a clapback is deemed by most as a targeted, often viciously acute comeback intended to place someone in much-needed check.
AOC is the “clap back queen” because she’s snarky on Twitter. Generally with factually innacruate statemnts that are as deep and well thought out as a puddle of piss on a men’s room floor. But that’s modern politics for you. It’s not the legislation you pass, it’s the likes you get on Twitter that matter.
I’m not sure how Sotomayor’s dissent claps back at Supreme Court majority, because what I read was pure bullshit.
“Free religious exercise is one of our most treasured and jealously guarded constitutional rights. States may not discriminate against religious institutions, even when faced with a crisis as deadly as this one,” she wrote. “But those restrictions are not at stake today.”
“Justices of this Court play a deadly game in second guessing the expert judgment of health officials about the environments in which a contagious virus, now infecting a million Americans each week, spreads most easily.”
The Court’s ruling, she noted, “will only exacerbate the Nation’s suffering.”
Sotomayor’s dissent can be viewed as a strong clapback to the Court’s conservative majority; in a footnote, she mentioned that “ironically” the plaintiff diocese is no longer subject to Cuomo’s numerical caps on attendance, “due to the success of New York’s public health measures.”
What she is saying here is that if the experts – who have been consistently worng on everything – tell her it’s necessary to totally restrict our rights to save lives, she’ll side with the experts over our rights.
Moreover, the ends justify the means, and while there is no evidence that stopping church attendence had any effect on curbing the spread of the virus, since the nubers did go down, the restriction on rights was worth it.
“The Constitution does not forbid States from responding to public health crises through regulations that treat religious institutions equally or more favorably than comparable secular institutions,” wrote Sotomayor, “particularly when these regulations save lives.”
That was the heart of the case.
Essential businesses were restricted to 50% capcatiy, so a Target big-box retailer could have 500 people in it at a time.
But a Church or Synagogue was limited to 10, no matter the square footing.
That is clearly disperate and unfair treatment of a religious insitution.
If a health crisis requires a 50% capcapity reduction, that must be equally applied.
Here is where this line of thinking ultiatley leads.
North Korea Executed Coronavirus Rule-Breaker, Says South Korean Intelligence
North Korea is taking increasingly harsh measures to stop the coronavirus from entering the country, including executing an official in August who violated anti-virus rules, South Korean intelligence officials told lawmakers on Friday.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un “has been expressing emotional excess, anger and signs of stress, and increasingly giving unreasonable orders,” Ha told reporters.
So if the experts agree your rights are null and void because of a health crisis and the ends justify the means, if Fauci decided that lockdown violators should be shot, bagged, tagged, and their bodies incinerated to stop the spread of a virus with a 99.97% survival rate, your right to life doesn’t matter if the spread is curbed.
Don’t forget how the Left has been screaming that poeple who violate mask orders shoud be denied medical care and left to die for breaking the rules.
The obvious next step will be along the lines of “if you violate the rules, you are putting someone else’s life at risk (‘killing grandma’), ergo it’s justified to kill you to prevent that.”
Sotamayor and the other justices that dissented have made it pretty clear that when the experts say that lockdown violators should be shot on sight, they will say that is Constitutional.
Like this:
Like Loading...
