Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

A Clear Victory for Civil Liberties

—

by

sherlockj
in

by James C. Sherlock

In a speech to the Federalist Society earlier this month, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the pandemic

“has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty. This is especially evident with respect to religious liberty. It pains me to say this, but in certain quarters, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right.”

Last night, the Supreme Court court ruled 5-4 to bar New York Governor Andrew Cuomo from enforcing his “Cluster Initiative” against houses of worship. This ruling was on a suit brought by two of those, a Catholic Church and a synagogue.

Bloomberg News reported that the order was aimed at worship services at some synagogues and Roman Catholic churches in parts of Brooklyn and Queens.

In designated red zones, the state limited attendance in houses of worship to 25% of their capacity or 10 people, whichever is fewer. The majority said his limits violated the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, in the concurring opinion, said Cuomo had treated religious activities less favorably than nonreligious ones.

Justice Gorsuch wrote:

“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,” wrote Gorsuch.

“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,” he continued, according to a tweet from The Economist correspondent Steven Mazie. “Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience?”

The American Civil Liberties Union, which perhaps needs a name change, condemned the decision and warned it could “undermine New York’s efforts to curb the pandemic.”

That decision is now the governing precedent for federal courts nationwide.  Any suit brought in Virginia on identical grounds will likely ultimately prevail.

Now we await suits on the right guaranteed in Article 8 of the Virginia constitution:

The General Assembly shall provide for a system of free public elementary and secondary schools for all children of school age throughout the Commonwealth, and shall seek to ensure that an educational program of high quality is established and continually maintained.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

119 responses to “A Clear Victory for Civil Liberties”

  1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    “Members of this court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area.” But we won’t.

    Great. My religion calls for human sacrifice. Finally, precedence!

    1. sherlockj Avatar
      sherlockj

      If it calls for self-immolation, we’ll back you to the hilt.

  2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    “Members of this court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area.” But we won’t.

    Great. My religion calls for human sacrifice. Finally, precedence!

    1. sherlockj Avatar
      sherlockj

      If it calls for self-immolation, we’ll back you to the hilt.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        “We” being the newly formed Catholic government?

  3. Wahoo Avatar
    Wahoo

    I am confused. Is the majority saying that Cuomo’s edict is a violation of religious liberty, or that the edict is unequally applied to churches versus other endeavors ( liquor store, bike shops).
    In either case, it is a dangerous conclusion in a time of a public health crisis. ( Thank God this is not ebola.)
    Couldn’t they keep their pie holes shut until this is over?

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      In point of fact, no, they obviously couldn’t keep their maws shut.

      The edict was recinded long ago, and the court didn’t need to even hear this case. They just wanted to show exactly how politically divisive they, too, could be.

      This was a signal that religion can be used to overturn everything. Sharia law anyone? Here comes the Vatican!

      1. sherlockj Avatar
        sherlockj

        Hey boys and girls:
        “Bloomberg News reported that the order was aimed at worship services at some synagogues and Roman Catholic churches in parts of Brooklyn and Queens.”

        Nancy, you have lost it. This ruling sets the standard that places of worship cannot be treated differently than secular establishments when restrictions are set. I know you understand that, but choose to ignore it.

      2. sherlockj Avatar
        sherlockj

        To your point about this being moot: The Supreme Court can recognize a game when it sees one. The order was rescinded BECAUSE the case was destined for the Supreme Court. If the Court had ruled it moot, the this morning Cuomo could have reinstated the order and the aggrieved parties would have had to start a new court fight. So give it a rest.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          And… they would have a bite at the new apple.

          This was a clear signal that “freedom of religion”, unlike speech, redress, and assemby is absolute, and absolutely a reason to overturn or gain exception on any and all laws.

          And that THIS SCOTUS is open for ecumenical business!

          1. sherlockj Avatar
            sherlockj

            You disrespect them. The rulings on speech, redress, takings, and assembly will follow this one like night follows day.

          2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Watch out boys and girls, blasphemy is illegal again.

      3. sherlockj Avatar
        sherlockj

        Try your local KKK klavern, Nancy. They will help you take on the Catholics.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          What? Not the Nazis? Usually, they’re the go to guys to shutdown the opponents.

          OTOH, if the religious feel it necessary to martyr themselves to a disease, who am I to stop them?

          At least, this time, they aren’t endangering children. That’s novel.

      4. PackerFan Avatar
        PackerFan

        So how politically divisive do you think the Roe v Wade court was? Or were you OK with that one so you don’t see it as “politically divisive” at all?

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Greater liberty is always better, don’t you think? The definition of smaller government is fewer prohibitions.

    2. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
      Reed Fawell 3rd

      “Couldn’t they (Supreme Court) keep their pie holes shut until this is over?”

      There is a perfect example of the problem at hand. And from a Wahoo, of course. By now, we know to expect no better.

  4. Wahoo Avatar
    Wahoo

    I am confused. Is the majority saying that Cuomo’s edict is a violation of religious liberty, or that the edict is unequally applied to churches versus other endeavors ( liquor store, bike shops).
    In either case, it is a dangerous conclusion in a time of a public health crisis. ( Thank God this is not ebola.)
    Couldn’t they keep their pie holes shut until this is over?

  5. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    It was not about religious liberty – it was the fact that New York had different restrictions for different activities and on that aspect the SCOTUS said it was wrong – that in THEIR opinion – religious gatherings were deserving of no more restrictions than bars and such.

    And on the merits, I agree but look at what the SCOTUS has gotten into. How many more court cases will question government decisions and essentially get the courts to decide ? Can it be 50 or 24 for a church or a funeral or a VFW meeting? Every one of these is now headed to the SCOTUS to decide?

    As pointed out, this paritcular issue was already moot – changes had been made.

    How will the lower courrts decide issues now – what guidance will they use from the SCOTUS? 25 or 50 – bar or wedding?

    Not about whether they can congregate or not – not about civil liberties per se – but rather about whether 50 or 25 constitutes civil liberties.

    I would have thought THE decision would be whether or not government has the power to decide the restrictions – yes or no. Not whether it’s 25 or 50.

    I AGREE the numbers are seemingly arbitrary sometimes but from now on – the SCOTUS will decide?

  6. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    It was not about religious liberty – it was the fact that New York had different restrictions for different activities and on that aspect the SCOTUS said it was wrong – that in THEIR opinion – religious gatherings were deserving of no more restrictions than bars and such.

    And on the merits, I agree but look at what the SCOTUS has gotten into. How many more court cases will question government decisions and essentially get the courts to decide ? Can it be 50 or 24 for a church or a funeral or a VFW meeting? Every one of these is now headed to the SCOTUS to decide?

    As pointed out, this paritcular issue was already moot – changes had been made.

    How will the lower courrts decide issues now – what guidance will they use from the SCOTUS? 25 or 50 – bar or wedding?

    Not about whether they can congregate or not – not about civil liberties per se – but rather about whether 50 or 25 constitutes civil liberties.

    I would have thought THE decision would be whether or not government has the power to decide the restrictions – yes or no. Not whether it’s 25 or 50.

    I AGREE the numbers are seemingly arbitrary sometimes but from now on – the SCOTUS will decide?

  7. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    Here’s some language from an old SCOTUS case, probably would appeal to progressives.

    “It should be noted, to begin with, that all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions. . .

    “We cannot reject as unfounded the judgment of . . . authorities and of Congress that there were . . . members of that population, whose number and strength could not be precisely and quickly ascertained. We cannot say that the . . . branches of the Government did not have ground for believing that, in a critical hour, such persons could not readily be isolated and separately dealt with, and constituted a menace to the . . . safety which demanded that prompt and adequate measures be taken to guard against it. . .

    “It was because we could not reject the finding of . . . authorities that it was impossible to bring about an immediate segregation . . . that we sustained the validity of the curfew order as applying to the whole group. . . In doing so, we are not unmindful of the hardships imposed by it upon a large group of American citizens.

    “Congress, reposing its confidence in . . . our leaders — as inevitably it must — determined that they should have the power to do just this. There was evidence . . . on the part of some, the . . . authorities considered that the need for action was great, and time was short. We cannot — by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight — now say that, at that time, these actions were unjustified.”

    “Yes, this is the language from the majority opinion in the Korematsu case in 1944, upholding the internment of ethnic Japanese in World War II.” If that was bad, why is deference to Cuomo good?

  8. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    Here’s some language from an old SCOTUS case, probably would appeal to progressives.

    “It should be noted, to begin with, that all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions. . .

    “We cannot reject as unfounded the judgment of . . . authorities and of Congress that there were . . . members of that population, whose number and strength could not be precisely and quickly ascertained. We cannot say that the . . . branches of the Government did not have ground for believing that, in a critical hour, such persons could not readily be isolated and separately dealt with, and constituted a menace to the . . . safety which demanded that prompt and adequate measures be taken to guard against it. . .

    “It was because we could not reject the finding of . . . authorities that it was impossible to bring about an immediate segregation . . . that we sustained the validity of the curfew order as applying to the whole group. . . In doing so, we are not unmindful of the hardships imposed by it upon a large group of American citizens.

    “Congress, reposing its confidence in . . . our leaders — as inevitably it must — determined that they should have the power to do just this. There was evidence . . . on the part of some, the . . . authorities considered that the need for action was great, and time was short. We cannot — by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight — now say that, at that time, these actions were unjustified.”

    “Yes, this is the language from the majority opinion in the Korematsu case in 1944, upholding the internment of ethnic Japanese in World War II.” If that was bad, why is deference to Cuomo good?

  9. CrazyJD Avatar
    CrazyJD

    Larry,

    As usual, you are just flat out wrong. It is, in fact , a “religious liberty”, First Amendment decision. You make it sound as if it were an Equal Protection problem. It is not. It is not based on disparate treatment of institutions, although that is the reason behind the decision. The First Amendment requires that religious institutions be treated neutrally. This was not done by the Cuomo edict. Cuomo targeted Orthodox Jewish communities in Brooklyn, which were treated differently than other nonreligious institutions. Read the opinion. Do you find Equal Protection mentioned in the per curiam?

    It is unusual for the Supreme Court to grant an injunction at this stage of the proceedings. Generally, the Supremes like to have issues hashed out in the lower courts. That they issued an injunction before lower court appeals are completed makes it pretty clear how this case is going to turnout, though I wouldn’t put it past Cuomo to try some other tack.

    To those of you who think the case was moot: you should either become lawyers so that you understand what you’re talking about, or more simply just read the cases cited by the per curiam opinion, and the factual reasons cited by the per curiam showing why the case is not moot. It’s pretty clear cut.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      re: ” The First Amendment requires that religious institutions be treated neutrally.”

      Well, no. They did NOT say that government could not restrict religious meetings – period. They qualified it and then said also that Government COULD but could not do so with different restrictions on different activities.

      As TMT quoted above: ” “It should be noted, to begin with, that all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions. . .”

      Think about this. Is SCOTUS now deciding which activities can be restricted and by how much on a case-by-case basis?

      I think SCOTUS has bought themselves a whole lot of grief and my bet is that they’re gonna duck future cases…and say they shouldn’t be deciding WHICH restrictions and What KIND of restrictions – that – that is for Government to determine.

      1. sherlockj Avatar
        sherlockj

        Try to listen to the lawyers on this blog when they talk about such things. For CrazyJD, consider the JD.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Reading in WSJ and others – no one contests the Government’s authority to set restrictions including on religious organizations for public health purposes.

          Plain reading of the decision itself shows the SCOTUS ruled that the restrictions on the religious organizations were more strict than on other organizations – as opposed to ruling that the govt had no authority to set the restrictions.

          Much ado about nothing except for the zealots.

          1. sherlockj Avatar
            sherlockj

            Except nearly everyone else understood the ruling from the beginning.

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Perhaps because the Orthodox Jews were so visibly noncompliant with previous calls and edicts to reduce contact? At some point it is not religion but civil conduct.

      “Render unto Caesar…”

      Again, the Justices, while claiming no expertise in communicable disease and that they should not act counter to the experts, did just that. It’s one thing not to store your meat with your cheese, quite another to act with public reckless endangerment.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        The Justices have no idea which gatherings have higher potential for transmission of disease yet they decided they do know and then “determined” which restrictions are “correct” or not and then ignorantly cast it as “religious liberty”. What a crock.

        Government can STILL set restrictions for religious group – was not stopped from doing so – only now it somehow can’t be “more restrictive” than “equivalent” groups of people – with “equivalent” being defined by SCOTUS vote – none of whom understands infectious disease.

  10. CrazyJD Avatar
    CrazyJD

    Larry,

    As usual, you are just flat out wrong. It is, in fact , a “religious liberty”, First Amendment decision. You make it sound as if it were an Equal Protection problem. It is not. It is not based on disparate treatment of institutions, although that is the reason behind the decision. The First Amendment requires that religious institutions be treated neutrally. This was not done by the Cuomo edict. Cuomo targeted Orthodox Jewish communities in Brooklyn, which were treated differently than other nonreligious institutions. Read the opinion. Do you find Equal Protection mentioned in the per curiam?

    It is unusual for the Supreme Court to grant an injunction at this stage of the proceedings. Generally, the Supremes like to have issues hashed out in the lower courts. That they issued an injunction before lower court appeals are completed makes it pretty clear how this case is going to turnout, though I wouldn’t put it past Cuomo to try some other tack.

    To those of you who think the case was moot: you should either become lawyers so that you understand what you’re talking about, or more simply just read the cases cited by the per curiam opinion, and the factual reasons cited by the per curiam showing why the case is not moot. It’s pretty clear cut.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Perhaps because the Orthodox Jews were so visibly noncompliant with previous calls and edicts to reduce contact? At some point it is not religion but civil conduct.

      “Render unto Caesar…”

      Again, the Justices, while claiming no expertise in communicable disease and that they should not act counter to the experts, did just that. It’s one thing not to store your meat with your cheese, quite another to act with public reckless endangerment.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        The Justices have no idea which gatherings have higher potential for transmission of disease yet they decided they do know and then “determined” which restrictions are “correct” or not and then ignorantly cast it as “religious liberty”. What a crock.

        Government can STILL set restrictions for religious group – was not stopped from doing so – only now it somehow can’t be “more restrictive” than “equivalent” groups of people – with “equivalent” being defined by SCOTUS vote – none of whom understands infectious disease.

  11. MatthewN Avatar
    MatthewN

    A great victory for religious freedom. These government restrictions are unconstitutional. They keep changing the rules, while people like Newsome and Pelosi ignore them.

  12. MatthewN Avatar
    MatthewN

    A great victory for religious freedom. These government restrictions are unconstitutional. They keep changing the rules, while people like Newsome and Pelosi ignore them.

  13. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    So, now several hundred are free to go to church, crowd close together for an hour or so, with some contracting the virus and then leaving to spread it into the community even more. If Gorsuch could not see how this situation is different from people going into a liquor store a few at a time and spending only a few minutes in the store, he is not as smart as I thought he was.

    Furthermore, no one’s freedom to worship has been prohibited. I know of churches that been having virtual services for months.

    1. Nathan Avatar
      Nathan

      Spare us the hyperbole. This just puts churches on an equal footing with others.

      Churches and churchgoers cannot be discriminated against, any more than racial groups or those of a certain national origin. Imagine COVID-19 restrictions that set different standards for various nationalities based on how touchy they are.

      https://qz.com/534097/never-touch-an-englishman-the-cuddliest-nationalities-in-europe-ranked/

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Do we know what the restrictions are for, say, movie theatres, or concert venues, or other large gatherings of people?

        Are gatherings in churches more restrictive than those other venues?

        re: “liberty” – an exceptionally important concept being denigrated and damaged by culture war politics about the pandemic.

      2. Emilio Jaksetic Avatar
        Emilio Jaksetic

        And imagine the liberal outrage if a public official applied more restrictive standards on abortion clinics, liberal political rallies, or left-wing protests. The selective moral indignation on gatherings during the COVID-19 pandemic is amazing and appalling.

        The left (and their enablers in the media) bemoans and condemns large gatherings for reasons and causes that they dislike or disagree with, yet is silent about large gatherings for reasons and causes that they like or agree with.

        Odd “science” — the danger of contagion and spread by COVID-19 varies with the the political orientation or the political correctness of the gathering?

  14. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    So, now several hundred are free to go to church, crowd close together for an hour or so, with some contracting the virus and then leaving to spread it into the community even more. If Gorsuch could not see how this situation is different from people going into a liquor store a few at a time and spending only a few minutes in the store, he is not as smart as I thought he was.

    Furthermore, no one’s freedom to worship has been prohibited. I know of churches that been having virtual services for months.

    1. Nathan Avatar
      Nathan

      Spare us the hyperbole. This just puts churches on an equal footing with others.

      Churches and churchgoers cannot be discriminated against, any more than racial groups or those of a certain national origin. Imagine COVID-19 restrictions that set different standards for various nationalities based on how touchy they are.

      https://qz.com/534097/never-touch-an-englishman-the-cuddliest-nationalities-in-europe-ranked/

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Do we know what the restrictions are for, say, movie theatres, or concert venues, or other large gatherings of people?

        Are gatherings in churches more restrictive than those other venues?

        re: “liberty” – an exceptionally important concept being denigrated and damaged by culture war politics about the pandemic.

  15. UpAgnstTheWall Avatar
    UpAgnstTheWall

    This is a stupid decision and the people defending it keep falling over themselves to see who can make the most tortured analogy in order to defend it. BuT iT’s tHe FiRsT aMeNdMenT! Fine, let’s look at the relevant clause:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

    Setting aside that the State of New York isn’t Congress (I see where conservatives draw their lines at 10th Amendment worship) because the precedent on all form of public institutions being beholden to the establishment clause has left the barn, and obviously the order didn’t establish a religion that leaves the question of whether it prohibited the free exercise thereof.

    The answer is, plainly, no. It doesn’t ban taking the sacrament, going to confession, forming a minyan, performing circumcisions, praying five times a day, ritual fasting, prayer in general, or receiving a sermon.

    What it does do is limit the amount of people who can occupy a place of worship at any one time, which is inconvenient, but not a prohibition of religious exercise. As to the question of fellowship – yes, that is a tenant among at least the Abrahamic religions, but all of those also have practices and guidance for when such is not feasible. Like when doing so would risk the lives of congregants and others.

    Nothing in Cuomo’s order prohibited religious exercise for anyone who actually understands what their religion demands. And Gorsuch comparing going into a bike shop for ten minutes to get new pedals to going into a building to sing and pray en masse for a couple hours during a pandemic spread through – checks notes – the respiratory system was basically asking everyone who read it to choose between their intelligence and their ideology.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Amen.

    2. sherlockj Avatar
      sherlockj

      Wow, a comparative religions major and a candidate for the Supreme Court in one person.

      An inconvenient fact. The guarantee of free exercise of religion has been incorporated against the states. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).

      As for the rest of it, your view lost.

      If only Cuomo had not made it clear as reported by Bloomberg News that a specific church and a specific synagogue in NYC were the targets of his order.

  16. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Yes. 5 minutes in a liquor store does not compare to an hour in a room with dozens/hundreds of people but no matter, “religious freedom” means you are “free” to go get infected and then spread it to others.

    What “business” do we compare congregation in a church to – a liquor store or a movie theatre?

    No matter, the SCOTUS can decide.

    Note they are NOT saying the Govt cannot do restrictions at all – but that SCOTUS decides how restrictive is “Constitutional” with nary a word about that in the Constitution itself.

    Talk about making things up out of whole cloth… and judicial “activisim”.

  17. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Yes. 5 minutes in a liquor store does not compare to an hour in a room with dozens/hundreds of people but no matter, “religious freedom” means you are “free” to go get infected and then spread it to others.

    What “business” do we compare congregation in a church to – a liquor store or a movie theatre?

    No matter, the SCOTUS can decide.

    Note they are NOT saying the Govt cannot do restrictions at all – but that SCOTUS decides how restrictive is “Constitutional” with nary a word about that in the Constitution itself.

    Talk about making things up out of whole cloth… and judicial “activisim”.

  18. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    As Patrick Henry famously said: “Give me liberty or give me death!”

    1. Nathan Avatar
      Nathan

      Don’t belittle the concept of liberty, else we let it slip and later regret it.

      “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
      – Ronald Reagan

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        You think you’re free? Try leaving.

      2. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
        Reed Fawell 3rd

        I agree with Patrick Henry and Ronnie Reagan. Church going is far better than going to a Virginia liquor store or Virginia casino or going for a Virginia abortion, not to mention Going to Hell.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Hey, since you’re so willing to send us all to Hell in your afterlife, at least have the decency not to get us used to it by making it Hell for everyone here.

          1. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            NN – Nobody is forcing you to attend a church, mosque or synagogue. It’s the totalitarian Progressives who seek to force their will on others.

            If living in a country where people are allowed to believe in God is Hell for you, that’s your problem. Live your life as you see fi,t and let others do the same.

          2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Oh, so as Roe v. Wade says then, abortion is a basic right for a woman… as she sees fit.

          3. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “Nancy_Naive | November 28, 2020 at 9:47 am |
            Oh, so as Roe v. Wade says then, abortion is a basic right for a woman… as she sees fit.”

            Roe is stare decisis, it’s not Law. Beyond that it provides limits to when abortion can be conducted, so the “she sees fit” line goes out the window.

          4. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Please point to where I said “law”? Thank you for telling me something I already knew.

            “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

            Roe v. Wade decision only “enumerated” another by decision for women.

          5. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “Nancy_Naive | November 30, 2020 at 6:54 am |
            Please point to where I said “law”? Thank you for telling me something I already knew.

            “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

            Roe v. Wade decision only “enumerated” another by decision for women.”

            It did not, it set judicial precedent. The Court doesn’t have the ability to “enumerate” anything.

            I don’t think you have a clue what’s outlined in Roe, as you stated “as she sees fit”.

          6. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Hence the quotes. They cite the 9th. You’re at work early today. Thanks for the two hour session last week. That was fun. Is that direct, overhead or PTO for you? I used PTO.

          7. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “Nancy_Naive | November 30, 2020 at 7:28 am |
            Hence the quotes. They cite the 9th. You’re at work early today. Thanks for the two hour session last week. That was fun. Is that direct, overhead or PTO for you? I used PTO.”

            The enumerated right not explicated stated in the Constitution argued in Roe was the “right to privacy”.

            My comings and goings are none of your business.

          8. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            No, but theft of contract hours might be. Just saying.

            In agreeing with the District court, “This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the 14th Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision …

          9. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “Nancy_Naive | November 30, 2020 at 8:29 am |
            No, but theft of contract hours might be. Just saying.

            In agreeing with the District court, “This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the 14th Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision …”

            Again, my comings and goings are none of your business.

            Just saying huh, well considering your statement ” I used PTO” there isn’t a company in existences that would allow for the amount of time you comment. So clearly that statement was an out and out fallacy.

            Again, Roe dealt with the 9th Amendment regarding the privacy. Which is a far cry from you statement of “”Oh, so as Roe v. Wade says then, abortion is a basic right for a woman… as she sees fit”

            If you can’t refrain from red herrings, don’t comment at all.

          10. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Retirement isn’t PTO? Hmmm, guess I’ll change my time sheet. But thanks for the confirmation.

            Ah, bitter arrogance, combined with a poor memory… so, outed not upped, and a succession of ever more mediocre DOD contractors and work.

          11. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “Nancy_Naive | November 30, 2020 at 8:44 am |
            Retirement isn’t PTO? Hmmm, guess I’ll change my time sheet. But thanks for the confirmation.

            Ah, bitter arrogance, combined with a poor memory… so, outed not upped, and a succession of ever more mediocre DOD contractors and work.”

            Retirement is retirement, it’s not PTO.

            It’s so much fun when you resort to ad hom attacks while complaining when they are directed towards you.

          12. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            It is when you own a chunk of the company. As it is, I can go in and, oh say, write a proposal, or if asked, consult on current work. So, retirement is a nebulous term in my case. Of course, it’s been more than a year or two, but still can.

            Yes, it is.

          13. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            All the Roe V Wade arguments about privacy break down when applied to other laws and regulations applied to the practice of medicine.

            If what happens between a doctor and patient is sacrosanct, then why can’t a doctor prescribe thalidomide to a pregnant woman? thalidomide wasn’t harmful to the pregnant woman, but had devastating impact on the unborn child.

            How can anyone deny that abortion has a more harmful impact on the unborn than thalidomide? Look it up.

          14. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Flipper wasn’t a porpoise. He was a 9-year old thalidomide baby. Interestingly, thalidomide is a chimera drug. Left/right handedness. One sucks. The other is a good tranquilizer.

          15. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Ah the crux of the matter comes out, all of your comments are just an exercise in autofellatio.

            The real question would be, did daddy buy that “chunk” by agreeing to your conception (assuming he didn’t just take as he pleased) last name or his money.

          16. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            “Get a second-hand guitar, chances are you’ll go far
            If you get in with the right bunch of fellows”

            No.

            But not stealing from the company or the customer is a definite key to success. So, take that PTO, work hard with diligence and patience, and you will be rewarded.

          17. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Well, it’s stopped raining. Going to the boat to do a little ‘lectrics fixin’. Gotta replace the CO and propane alarms and some light fixtues. The alarms are more than 10 years old and one of the CO alarms takes 15 minutes to stop squawking when powered up. It’s a sign.

            Have a good day doing whatever it is you charge time to. See ya after lunch.

  19. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    As Patrick Henry famously said: “Give me liberty or give me death!”

    1. Nathan Avatar
      Nathan

      Don’t belittle the concept of liberty, else we let it slip and later regret it.

      “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
      – Ronald Reagan

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        You think you’re free? Try leaving.

  20. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    If one reads the opinions of the Justices (and I have), one comes away from the per curiam opinion and Gorsuch’s concurring opinion with the impression that the Governor’s order applied only to religious houses of worship. Gorsuch makes a big deal that liquor stores and bike shops could remain open. In truth, however, as noted in Sotomayor’s dissent, the order applied to all venues in which large groups of people gathered in close proximity for extended periods of time, such as movie theaters, concerts, spectator sports, concerts, etc. The order did single out houses of worship, but, in order to give them preferential treatment. Whereas, those other venues were to be closed completely, churches and synagogues could have some congregants attend. Finally, the order was not applicable city-wide, only to designated areas experiencing a surge in infections.

    If one were to follow Gorsuch’s logic, in order to fight the pandemic, government would need to shut down all businesses if churches, where large groups of people gather, are to be restricted. Is that really what we want?

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      The “logic” astounds. Is a church gathering more like a liquor store or a movie theatre or concert venue?

      How can someone sit on the highest court in the land and not see that distinction?

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Depends on just how drunk on the spirits/Spirit one gets.

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      By definition, a man’s faith, hence his religions by association, is the absence of all reason. So apparently, yes, that is precisely what is wanted.

    3. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
      Reed Fawell 3rd

      “If one reads the opinions of the Justices (and I have), one comes away from the per curiam opinion and Gorsuch’s concurring opinion with the impression that the Governor’s order applied only to religious houses of worship.”

      Good work.

      Now, for even more perspective, try reading the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        I have read it many times and studied it extensively in college and graduate school.

    4. sherlockj Avatar
      sherlockj

      I’ll try one more time, Dick.

      “Bloomberg News reported that the order was aimed at worship services at some synagogues and Roman Catholic churches in parts of Brooklyn and Queens.”

      Aimed.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        The order did not say that explicitly. That report is drawing upon Cuomo’s comments, which he was unwise to make. However, in the Muslim exclusion case, the Supreme Court said that Trump’s comments regarding his true intent for his order was not relevant to the interpretation of the order. Therefore, Cuomo’s ill-timed comments should not be relevant, either.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Sadly, Cuomo didn’t appoint 3 of ’em.

    5. Nathan Avatar
      Nathan

      “movie theaters, concerts, spectator sports, concerts, etc.”

      Is there an Amendment in the Bill of Rights for entertainment? Which one? I missed it.

      “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

      And let’s stop pretending that Jews haven’t been singled out.

      “Why are Cuomo and de Blasio singling out Orthodox Jews?
      If preventing looting by non-socially distanced criminals is not a government priority but stopping people from praying in a house of worship is, something is profoundly wrong.”

      “The answer to this problem is not continued resistance to common-sense measures like masks and social distancing. But before anyone criticizes those who are protesting the untrammeled use of government power to impose lockdowns, it is past time for politicians to drop the hypocrisy and their scapegoating of Jews or anyone else that thinks the First Amendment hasn’t been repealed.”

      https://www.israelhayom.com/2020/10/09/why-are-cuomo-and-de-blasio-singling-out-orthodox-jews/

  21. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    If one reads the opinions of the Justices (and I have), one comes away from the per curiam opinion and Gorsuch’s concurring opinion with the impression that the Governor’s order applied only to religious houses of worship. Gorsuch makes a big deal that liquor stores and bike shops could remain open. In truth, however, as noted in Sotomayor’s dissent, the order applied to all venues in which large groups of people gathered in close proximity for extended periods of time, such as movie theaters, concerts, spectator sports, concerts, etc. The order did single out houses of worship, but, in order to give them preferential treatment. Whereas, those other venues were to be closed completely, churches and synagogues could have some congregants attend. Finally, the order was not applicable city-wide, only to designated areas experiencing a surge in infections.

    If one were to follow Gorsuch’s logic, in order to fight the pandemic, government would need to shut down all businesses if churches, where large groups of people gather, are to be restricted. Is that really what we want?

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      By definition, a man’s faith, hence his religions by association, is the absence of all reason. So apparently, yes, that is precisely what is wanted.

    2. Nathan Avatar
      Nathan

      “movie theaters, concerts, spectator sports, concerts, etc.”

      Is there an Amendment in the Bill of Rights for entertainment? Which one? I missed it.

      “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

      And let’s stop pretending that Jews haven’t been singled out.

      “Why are Cuomo and de Blasio singling out Orthodox Jews?
      If preventing looting by non-socially distanced criminals is not a government priority but stopping people from praying in a house of worship is, something is profoundly wrong.”

      “The answer to this problem is not continued resistance to common-sense measures like masks and social distancing. But before anyone criticizes those who are protesting the untrammeled use of government power to impose lockdowns, it is past time for politicians to drop the hypocrisy and their scapegoating of Jews or anyone else that thinks the First Amendment hasn’t been repealed.”

      https://www.israelhayom.com/2020/10/09/why-are-cuomo-and-de-blasio-singling-out-orthodox-jews/

    3. sherlockj Avatar
      sherlockj

      I’ll try one more time, Dick.

      “Bloomberg News reported that the order was aimed at worship services at some synagogues and Roman Catholic churches in parts of Brooklyn and Queens.”

      Aimed.

  22. sherlockj Avatar
    sherlockj

    Folks, there is no protected freedom to attend movies or roller skate in the Constitution.

    And Nancy, your hatred of religion is precisely why freedom of religion IS protected. Sorry.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      It’s not religion I hate. It’s the lack of reason imposed on others.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Really. You have no 1st amendment right to attend a movie if you want to?

      The government cannot shut down movie theatres or concert venues because everyone has the “right” to attend if they wish? The owner of the theatre has to right to exercise his free speech by showing movies?

      There is absolutely no right of government to restrict free speech?

      really? Why don’t you try that by attending a government meeting and getting up and sayin your piece and then you can sue when they escourt you out?

      This is the problem with Conservative folks these days. Everything is literal and black and white… there is nothing in between.

  23. sherlockj Avatar
    sherlockj

    Folks, there is no protected freedom to attend movies or roller skate in the Constitution.

    And Nancy, your hatred of religion is precisely why freedom of religion IS protected. Sorry.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      It’s not religion I hate. It’s the lack of reason imposed on others.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Really. You have no 1st amendment right to attend a movie if you want to?

      The government cannot shut down movie theatres or concert venues because everyone has the “right” to attend if they wish? The owner of the theatre has to right to exercise his free speech by showing movies?

      There is absolutely no right of government to restrict free speech?

      really? Why don’t you try that by attending a government meeting and getting up and sayin your piece and then you can sue when they escourt you out?

      This is the problem with Conservative folks these days. Everything is literal and black and white… there is nothing in between.

  24. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    The Supreme Court has struggled during its history with the “free expression” clause, but it has never ruled the freedom to be absolute. To be sure, it has vacilliated over the years in the tests that should applied in its efforts to balance free expression of religious beliefs with other rights or interests of society. https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-i/interps/265

    It is truly ironic that the least religious of all presidents has now put in place a Supreme Court that seems poised to raise religion to new heights of protection.

    1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
      TooManyTaxes

      And what about the arguments that the right to abortion is, indeed, absolute? How is that consistent?

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        The courts have upheld certain restrictions on abortions. By the way, I don’t agree with Roe v. Wade, either.

    2. Nathan Avatar
      Nathan

      We are well aware that no right is absolute, and balancing rights CAN BE difficult. This isn’t a hard one, however.

      Just as it shouldn’t be hard to discern that rioting, beating up people and burning down buildings is wrong and unlawful.

      The left has lost its way.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        What member of the “left” has condoned rioting, beating up people, and burning down buildings”?

        1. UpAgnstTheWall Avatar
          UpAgnstTheWall

          A lot of people quoting Martin Luther King’s “the riot is the voice of the unheard” speech.

          1. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            And those quoting him took those words out of context. Read the entire conversation. Martin Luther King opposed violence.

        2. Nathan Avatar
          Nathan

          Are you serious?

          For several months we heard only praise and excuses for rioting and rioters. With more destruction across the country than any other time in recent history, the mantra from the left was “mostly peaceful.”

          Even “scientists” got in the act suggesting that COVID-19 restrictions shouldn’t apply.

          When rioters tried numerous times to burn down the federal courthouse in Portland, it was the federal agents protecting federal property that were most harshly condemned, not the rioters.

          Pelosi calls federal law enforcement in Portland “stormtroopers”

          https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/07/pelosi-calls-federal-law-enforcement-in-portland-stormtroopers/

    3. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Protection? Or dominance?

  25. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    The Supreme Court has struggled during its history with the “free expression” clause, but it has never ruled the freedom to be absolute. To be sure, it has vacilliated over the years in the tests that should applied in its efforts to balance free expression of religious beliefs with other rights or interests of society. https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-i/interps/265

    It is truly ironic that the least religious of all presidents has now put in place a Supreme Court that seems poised to raise religion to new heights of protection.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Protection? Or dominance?

    2. Nathan Avatar
      Nathan

      We are well aware that no right is absolute, and balancing rights CAN BE difficult. This isn’t a hard one, however.

      Just as it shouldn’t be hard to discern that rioting, beating up people and burning down buildings is wrong and unlawful.

      The left has lost its way.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        What member of the “left” has condoned rioting, beating up people, and burning down buildings”?

        1. UpAgnstTheWall Avatar
          UpAgnstTheWall

          A lot of people quoting Martin Luther King’s “the riot is the voice of the unheard” speech.

        2. Nathan Avatar
          Nathan

          Are you serious?

          For several months we heard only praise and excuses for rioting and rioters. With more destruction across the country than any other time in recent history, the mantra from the left was “mostly peaceful.”

          Even “scientists” got in the act suggesting that COVID-19 restrictions shouldn’t apply.

          When rioters tried numerous times to burn down the federal courthouse in Portland, it was the federal agents protecting federal property that were most harshly condemned, not the rioters.

          Pelosi calls federal law enforcement in Portland “stormtroopers”

          https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/07/pelosi-calls-federal-law-enforcement-in-portland-stormtroopers/

  26. UpAgnstTheWall Avatar
    UpAgnstTheWall

    This is a stupid decision and the people defending it keep falling over themselves to see who can make the most tortured analogy in order to defend it. BuT iT’s tHe FiRsT aMeNdMenT! Fine, let’s look at the relevant clause:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

    Setting aside that the State of New York isn’t Congress (I see where conservatives draw their lines at 10th Amendment worship) because the precedent on all form of public institutions being beholden to the establishment clause has left the barn, and obviously the order didn’t establish a religion that leaves the question of whether it prohibited the free exercise thereof.

    The answer is, plainly, no. It doesn’t ban taking the sacrament, going to confession, forming a minyan, performing circumcisions, praying five times a day, ritual fasting, prayer in general, or receiving a sermon.

    What it does do is limit the amount of people who can occupy a place of worship at any one time, which is inconvenient, but not a prohibition of religious exercise. As to the question of fellowship – yes, that is a tenant among at least the Abrahamic religions, but all of those also have practices and guidance for when such is not feasible. Like when doing so would risk the lives of congregants and others.

    Nothing in Cuomo’s order prohibited religious exercise for anyone who actually understands what their religion demands. And Gorsuch comparing going into a bike shop for ten minutes to get new pedals to going into a building to sing and pray en masse for a couple hours during a pandemic spread through – checks notes – the respiratory system was basically asking everyone who read it to choose between their intelligence and their ideology.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Amen.

    2. sherlockj Avatar
      sherlockj

      Wow, a comparative religions major and a candidate for the Supreme Court in one person.

      An inconvenient fact. The guarantee of free exercise of religion has been incorporated against the states. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).

      As for the rest of it, your view lost.

      If only Cuomo had not made it clear as reported by Bloomberg News that a specific church and a specific synagogue in NYC were the targets of his order.

      1. UpAgnstTheWall Avatar
        UpAgnstTheWall

        I know, it’s inconceivable that a person can dedicate their time to more than one area of inquiry and form cogent arguments based off said study. Totally mind blowing! And how is a fact inconvenient if I mention it in my reply? I acknowledge its existence.

        I guess like so many other things, when you’re famous they let you do it – they here being SCOTUS, you being Donald Trump, and let you do it meaning discriminate on the basis of religion who can enter the country after plainly stating so out loud.

        But, no wait, really it’s about unfairly punishing religious minorities like when Israel’s own COVID czar acknowledged that 40% of the country’s COVID cases come from the 10% of the population that’s ultra Orthodox. No, I mean it’s the Catholics, who are so powerless they are accounted for in only 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices and…the governor of New York? That can’t be right…

        But settled law is settled law, right? Which is why conservatives have never not once complained about or looked for opportunities to overturn Roe v. Wade.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Well, given how laws and decisions are built on earlier cases, choosing to ignore Trump’s statements and accept Cuomo’s is actually justifiable based on the precedent, Idiot v Expert.

  27. sherlockj Avatar
    sherlockj

    This has proven to be a fun topic with no strong feelings on either side.

    The attacks on the decision are not really based on this one decision. They show the fear in the left that the Supreme Court may not bow to the administrative state – “experts” who can usefully tell all of us how to live and whose latest musings can be made mandatory at the drop of an executive order.

    I would ask can’t we at least all agree that the “experts” have a spotty record at best in COVID-19, but I know that answer from the left. “Experts” must be believed, and the people must bow.

    Old joke is still true. A progressive wants people to be able to do whatever they wish as long as it is mandatory.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      re: ” the “experts” have a spotty record at best in COVID-19″

      yep, it’s sorta like the “experts” who predict hurricanes or cancer or other science – not exactly dead on 100% correct and subject to revision as time goes by and more data collected but pretty close and way better than idiot soothsayers and SCOTUS types.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Or… the experts who pray the hurricane away from Virginia to slaughter the folks in New England. Oh well… shows who God likes best.

      2. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        “When it comes to preventing coronavirus, public health officials have been clear: Healthy people do not need to wear a face mask to protect themselves from COVID-19,” CBS News reported March 8, concerning the Fauci interview.

        “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask,” the infectious disease expert told “60 Minutes.”

        “While masks may block some droplets, Fauci said, they do not provide the level of protection people think they do,” CBS News reported at the time.

        1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
          Reed Fawell 3rd

          “Former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson offers the third installment in the best-selling series that offers an honest counterpart to credulous media coverage about the risks of the coronavirus and ways to stop it.

          Unreported Truths Part 1 focused on the way we count deaths from COVID-19. Part 2 explained lockdowns. But Part 3 covers a topic even more central to our lives every day – the evidence that masks do or do not work to reduce the spread of the coronavirus.

          For months, public health experts have proclaimed, “My mask protects you, while yours protects me.” Governments all over the world now make people wear face coverings in public. But the proof that masks do any good is far weaker than almost anyone understands.”

          See:
          https://www.amazon.com/Unreported-Truths-About-Covid-19-Lockdowns-ebook/dp/B08P3T15PW/ref=sr_1_5?crid=4R65T0D9V40B&dchild=1&keywords=berenson+books+covid+19&qid=1606493075&s=books&sprefix=Berenson+boo%2Caps%2C149&sr=1-5

          Like Parts 1 and 2, this section draws on primary sources like Centers for Disease Control and World Health Organization reports, along with news articles, government documents, and scientific papers. It will give you a new perspective on whether masks work – and the truthful and accurate information you need as the debate over mask requirements rages on.

          Please note: This booklet contains only the third section of Unreported Truths. Parts 1 and 2 are available separately.”

          Note that Amazon at first refused to put book one and three on their site. Now all three are best sellers. And Benenson has be on BR since March or April.

      3. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China”

        World Health Organization (WHO)

        WHO is so in bed with China that they would not listen to reports from Taiwan that China was lying. Taiwan is not allowed to be a member of WHO for one reason – China objects.

        So while tweets from President Trump and conservatives are blocked or given warning signs, the tweet from WHO is still available. Check it out.

        https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1217043229427761152%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Fwho-no-transmission-coronavirus-tweet-was-to-appease-china-guardian-2020-4

  28. Publius Avatar
    Publius

    Hysteria much?
    The virus is a virus and I am sick of the psy-op to get rid of OrangeManBad…
    How come this report from Johns Hopkins got unpersoned and is now only available via the Wayback?
    https://web.archive.org/web/20201126223119/https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19
    For an explanation of what the study showed, here is this –
    https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/study-absolutely-no-excess-deaths-from-covid-19new-data-no-excess-deaths-from-covid-19/

    Catch these while you can, take a big, deep breath of Covid air and try to live in freedom, without fear and panic.

  29. Intellectual Freedom News 12/4/2020 – Intellectual Freedom Blog

    […] A Clear Victory for Civil Liberties | Bacon’s Rebellion […]

Leave a Reply

Read More