The Supreme Court has taken a dangerous rightwing turn since the addition of Trump’s three religious zealot. Poor Chief Justice John Roberts has lost control. He is no longer the deciding vote. In the latest decision, he joined with the Court’s three liberals in a vain effort to say that public health requires all of us to accept limits and restrictions, even houses of worship. Several people tweeted to tell me that their churches encouraged masks and social distancing. But many others do not. See the photograph in Mike Klonsky’s post of a Brooklyn synagogue where thousands of congregants were packed together, maskless.
The Supreme Court’s 5-4 midnight ruling, which prevents New York city and state officials from imposing limits on the Roman Catholic Diocese or Brooklyn’s Hasidic sect during the pandemic, had little to do with the broad issue of religious freedom. Rather it was a signal to Trump’s MAGA death cult and his evangelical base that the extreme right-wing majority, led by DT’s newly-appointed religious cultist, Amy Coney Barrett, was on the job and will be for decades to come.
The Court already ruled that a baker in Colorado did not have to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. What will the Court rule when a shopkeeper refuses to serve women or blacks or Jews because of his religious beliefs? This Court is certain to say that religious beliefs “trump” civil rights law.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The other Klonsky on another dangerous decision: https://preaprez.wordpress.com/2020/11/30/biden-and-the-man-from-black-rock-bad-news-for-the-planet/
Dienne,
You are going to miss Trump.
It’s very odd that a far right wing Supreme Court where John Roberts is considered a “moderate” doesn’t bother this person — nor does this person see any danger in the far right Supreme Court for at least a decade and possibly many more! — but an appointment of a former Obama administration official scares the socks off this person?
I support being informed about the negative aspects of Biden choices, but there is an extreme double standard in this “guilt by association” applied to Biden’s picks.
Faiz Shakir ran Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign and he used to work for the reviled Center for American Progress! So what? Shakir believes in very progressive ideas and he would make a perfectly fine cabinet pick even if he once worked for the evil CAP.
Judge people on what they do – not who they once worked for or a group they were once associated with. Calling a pick “dangerous” needs a lot of back-up, not just “he used to work at this evil organization and was hired because this evil organization wanted to pretend to do good and he was there for 10 months and didn’t do good and is leaving, so therefore this man is evil.”
Biden actually wants to do some good on Climate Change. Will it be enough? Probably not. But the difference between doing something very good even if it isn’t enough and actually working to cause extreme harm and end regulations that protect the environment, as the Trump White House did, is enormous.
Trump apologists don’t care about the environment. It reminds me of Trump apologists in the Republican party who will suddenly decide that “deficits matter” now that Biden is in office, while they insisted that they did not matter when Trump blew up the deficit to give tax cuts to billionaires.
Has “dienne77” ever said a disparaging word about Donald Trump, or anyone in the Republican Party?
I think we need to thank the religious communities volunteering to test the restrictions to see if they are sensible. Their deaths will inform us all.
Did the Deaths from the massive national and international BLM/Antifa riots inform us all?
I imagine it would have because they are so much larger than one small wedding gathering.
But there was not one peep from any Democrat leader regarding these national massive BLM/Antifa super spreader events
Do the math. It’s not rocket science.
The religious communities can solve the problem, though, by renaming their wedding a BLM protest. LOL.
The Democrat leaders insisted the BLM rallies were too important to cancel, even amid Covid.
Do you have a scientific argument that can defend that logic? If in fact one may even suggest that such idiotic ill-informed thinking is actually logic.
Of course the national/internation BLM riots were more likely to be supre spreader events than one small wedding. Geesh.
The protest rallies were outdoors, usually moving, mostly masked. Unlike going to church.
Did you really call that a small wedding? Did you see that picture?
Look up the research – since the protesters wore masks, they actually helped slow the spread. Be careful what you assume.
The rioting that went on was often instigated by white supremacists trying to blame the peaceful protesters. Your racism is evident.
If some commenting here actually watched the news, they would see that the BLM rioters and looters were mostly NOT wearing masks. Some were yelling in the faces of police officers.
The Maga rallies were held outside, too, BTW. Thus by your own claim, they were likely not super spreaders either.
So, let me get this clarified. You are saying that five people in a room are safe from Covid 19, but 100 is not.
Wow, so can Covid 19 count. That is one smart virus. LOL.
Also, the restaurants in NYC can only stay open until 10 p.m. Because at 10:01 p.m. the virus is more deadly than at 10 p.m.
Why is Walmart allowed to stay open, but a small mom & pop grocery store can not?
Is Covid 19 kinder to Walmart shoppers?
Get real people. Follow the science. The science will say you are in just as much danger in Walmart as the small shop.
Trump killed Herman Cain, who attended his Tulsa rally.
There were no Antifa or BLM rallies in the Dakotas or Wyoming, yet the virus is raging there.
Was it spread by Trump’s massless rally at Mt. Rushmore or was it the Sturgis motorcycle rally in Sturgis, South Dakota, also massless?
Or is Antifa running wild in the Dakotas?
Sara,
In the BLM protest that I participated in and several others that I observed first hand, the participants were masked, socially distant, and typically on the move. If your only understanding of BLM protests comes from watching television reports, it is good to remember that there was a reason someone choose to show you that footage and not some other footage.
No one is safe from Covid, but yes, if you are in a room with four other people you are safer than if you are in that room with ninety-nine other people. This is both because the number of infectious people in the room is highly likely to be smaller with fewer in the room and social distance can be maintained better with fewer people in the room. Ventilation, of course, makes a large difference as well.
Personally I don’t think that restaurants should be open for in person dining, especially indoors, but I think the 10 pm cutoff is designed to reduce excess drinking and encourage people to reduce the amount of time spent together. Both would reduce but not eliminate the risk.
It would be helpful if you could provide a link to situations where large stores are allowed to stay open while small ones are not. It may have to do with capacity that is consistent with social distancing. I often wait in line outside my grocery store (masked and socially distant) so that there is enough room to socially distance inside the store. Perhaps the smallest of stores can not provide enough space to allow both the staff and and customers to be safe.
Sara, do you have any criticism of Donald Trump and his fascist loyalists to share with us?
Mathman:
Yes. Mr. Mathman. The wedding was small compared to the BLM/antifa riots and the Biden street party that took place in NYC to celebrate what they thought was a Biden win.
BTW: Did you see the Biden celebrants passing around bottles of champagne and scads of people were taking a swig from the same saliva covered bottle.
No wonder case went up in NYC, afterward.
If you have the resources you can even plug in pictures of the wedding and the riots and see the proportional difference. The wedding wins for smallness by comparison.
Sara,
You do not make a useful contribution to the blog.
You spout Trumpian lies (sorry, but Biden was elected President and Trump lost.)
You are a curiosity here: a person who is thoroughly brainwashed and programmed to spout absurd lies.
You are not interesting or thoughtful. You have no capacity for reflection.
Perhaps you should stick with your echo chamber, where you can share heartwarming stories about QAnon, lovable fascists, Proud Boys, and white supremacists.
We often disagree, TE. But your measured, accurate response here is one with which I wholeheartedly agree.
I agree with your agreement, Greg, & wholeheartedly agree with TE on this one.
“This Court is certain to say that religious beliefs “trump” civil rights law.”
Considering that this country was in no way, shape or form founded as a religious, much less the xtian version of Abrahamic religions, how can these supposed strict original intent justices claim that religious beliefs should override or supersede civil rights law?
It can’t and shouldn’t. Talk about a “legislating court”. The xtian regressive reactionary fundies who are on the court need to be countermanded-expand the number of seats to equal the number of federal districts, 13, with a representative from each federal district territory. But I don’t see Biden and Congress doing a damn thing about it. Can’t rock the economic boat, now can we?!
Forget the economic impact. If Biden does not end up with two democrat senators from Georgia, a long shot, McConnell will once agin be the power in DC.
What is interesting to contemplate is the idea of introducing multitudes of pieces of legislation that are essentially bipartisan and popular. As under Obama, Miser Mitch will block the passage of these things because the republican philosophy has been to not allow even positive legislation to be passed under a Democratic Presidency. The Republican philosophy is to sabetoge the government and then blame the government.
The Senate,if controlled by Mitch, will do nothing to expand the Court. Don’t blame Biden.
Diane:
The Democrat congress obstructed the Trump administration for 4 years.
Karma is a beotch. Isn’t it?
Maybe if they had tried to unite when Trump was in office….more could have been accomplished.
The Democrat controlled congress set the tone of disunity. Now, they want unity? Oh well.
Sara, were you even awake during Obama’s two terms? 8 years of nothing but obstruction. Were you just born in January 2017?
And the Democrats have only had the house for two years, remember?
Sara: Everyone agreed attention to the aging infrastructure of the country was necessary, going back into the Obama administration. The Democrats have done nothing to obstruct this effort, whereas the Republicans have never offered any legislation that would start to remedy this problem. This is the type of obstructionism that is new i history to the American body politic. In the past, things generally good for the country were agreed upon for by both parties. With notable exceptions such as the abolition of slavery, of course.
Sadly, I won’t get much choice but to blame Biden. The Dimocraps love to kiss and make up with the Rethuglicans which will result in the country being totally screwed by both. The Obomber kissed and made up with the Bush war criminal regime and all walked scott free to continue to wreak havoc on the political system.
Sorry for your cynicism. It’s sour and hopeless.
Gotta refer to the expert on cynicism for a response, Ambrose Bierce:
CYNIC, n. A blackguard* whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic’s eyes to improve his vision.
*BLACKGUARD, n. A man whose qualities, prepared for display like a box of berries in a market — the fine ones on top — have been opened on the wrong side. An inverted gentleman.
And, yes, that “hope and change thingy” as explained by Alaska’s pre-eminent politician worked well for the little guy, eh. More neoliberal cut the small guy so she slowly bleeds to death is what I foresee coming from the incoming administration. I HOPE that I am wrong. I doubt it.
Duane: I would be very interested to hear your description of Biden’s behavior that would be positive, and what you would do as Biden if it were stymied politically. I do not mean this sarcastically, but completely literally.
Biden is acting like a rational human being, which we have not seen at the top in four years.
He is calm, deliberate, going about the important business of picking a good cabinet.
What he can accomplish depends to a large degree on what happens in Georgia Senate runoffs.
If both Dems win, he has a chance of keeping promises. If one or both lose, Mitch McConnell will be in charge.
Sara, please enlighten us and list all the “great” stuff Trump would have accomplished if both Houses of Congress has supported him for everything he wanted to do?
Do not forget that after the 2016 election, the Republican Party still retained majority control of both Houses of Congress for the first two years of Trump’s presidency.
It wasn’t until after 2018’s midterm election that the GOP lost the House of Representatives to the Democratic Party, and even then, when Trump went along with the Democrats on a “few” issues (not many but some), the Republican-controlled Senate still blocked that legislation, too.
And, let’s not forget the courts. Trump has lost most of the cases brought against his administration and the cases his lawyers have taken to the courts, more than any other modern-era president.
Trump has been unsuccessful in court 133 x to 27 successes.
https://policyintegrity.org/trump-court-roundup
Then there’s the courts.
“U.S. Supreme Court defied Trump at key moments in blockbuster term” – published July 2020
“The conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Roberts leading the way, has distinctly staked out its independence from President Donald Trump by delivering a series of setbacks to him and his administration in pivotal cases.” …
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-term-analysis/u-s-supreme-court-defied-trump-at-key-moments-in-blockbuster-term-idUSKBN24B17I
I agree with Diane’s assessment of Biden’s demeanor and disposition and thank goodness for it! But when I read “He is . . . . going about the important business of picking a good cabinet.”, I really have to wonder about this article:
https://jacobinmag.com/2020/11/joe-biden-neera-tanden-social-security-omb/
The Republicans have already said that they will not approve Neera Tanden. She is too left for them.
I will still firmly maintain that the SCOTUS has put religion above public health. Years ago, an adult student of mine told me that this is a very, very religious country, I did not want to believe her. Now I do.
The last paragraph in Diane’s post is on the mark and should be a major concern.
Also on the Supreme’s calendar this month is: Fulton v. City of Philadelphia:
Whether the city violates the First Amendment when it makes participation in the city’s foster-care system by a faith-based agency contingent on actions and statements by the agency that conflict with the agency’s religious beliefs, and whether the court should reconsider its 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith, holding that the government can enforce laws that burden religious beliefs or practices as long as the laws are “neutral” or “generally applicable.”
The signers of the amicus briefs filed in the case will inform the public which religions want to destroy the wall between church and state.
And let us not forget that today the “originalists” with take up the issue of whether The Trump Presidency has the right, as they claim, to arbitrarily alter the constitution and use a different stat from the census to determine representation in congress. That they even took this case is cause for alarm, and any ruling that is not unanimous against the Trump administration on this will signal the complete politicalization of the Supreme Court. If the Trump presidency can change the census, which he has already undermined with his changing directives, the country is now effectively run by the executive branch.
Conservatives should trust me. They do not want this one ruled for Trump. Imagine what a left wing (a real left wing) president might do. Could a president nationalize an oil company? Arrest anyone in the opposition without cause?
In instance after instance, this court makes a mockery of claims to “originalism,” a concept that is contrived at best.
Original is iswhatever suits their momentary needs.
A true Originalist would oppose women on the High Court.
ACB would stay home and be a housewife.
If The Constitution cannot be interpreted to apply to a modern society, then it is a stone that will drag us back to our checkered past.
Population control by Darwinism. Unfortunately, these are the folks who will fill up hospital beds and require the most resources before succumbing to death due to their stupidity while leaving the rest of us to clean up the big mess afterwards. It’s just plain stupidity! My Jewish in-laws go to drive in/parking lot service every Friday evening….no one NEEDS to go into a building to worship any kind of G_d.
Lisa, the foolish people in the photo are the ones that won the Supreme Court case.
And aren’t these the ones who suck the life out of government “social” services?…..medicaid, public school funding for religious indoctrination, low rent/cost housing, SNAP/Food stamps etc. I have so much respect for the Amish……they want nothing from the government except to be left alone.
With the Our Lady of the Angels fire anniversary (December 1, 1958) upon us, fire safety should be a concern too. 😐
All those Hasidic Jews stuffed into one little room would burn or die from breathing smoke. Wearing all those clothes and hats would probably make the fire worse. ☹️
Once all or most Hasidic Jews die in that horrific fire, some one equates it to The Holocaust (yes I know it’s awful for so many reasons). But those Hasidic Jews weren’t forced to attend (yes, free will again). ☹️
How many of those attendees even knew the rabbi’s grandson personally? 😐
Poor Roberts nothing.
Now all the pressure has been taken off him and he can side with the minority from time to time — thereby perpetuating the charade that the Supreme Court is not just a rubber stamp for corporations and religious extremists — knowing that his vote will not make the difference.
It’s actually a very convenient situation for both Roberts and the right wing majority because if Roberts had to cast the deciding vote to pass right wing decisions every time, it would make the Court appear compketely partisan. Now they can say “look, even the Chief Justice can vote his conscience”
But in Roberts’ defense: he cast the deciding vote saving Obamacare, and cast a vote in a 6-3 decision saying that gays could not be fired because of their sexual identity.
You said “poor Roberts” and I explained why he is not poor at all.
My statement deals purely with the Court going forward.
I said nothing at all about his past decisions.
But I would note that when there was not a right wing majority without Roberts, the perception of the legitimacy of the Court had to at least be in the back of Roberts mind every time he cast a vote.
He had to consider that his voting with the majority every time might be perceived as partisan.
Roberts has now become the equivalent of members of Congress like Susan Collins who are free to “vote their conscience” (cough cough) in cases where their vote is not needed to pass a particular bill.
It’s actually a much easier position to be in than to have to cast the deciding vote every time.
This Supreme Court ruling is a win for individualism over collectivism, even though “freedom of religion” is the basis of the claim. Meeting in large maskless congregations is not the only way for people to pray or worship. There are many other ways to express religious devotion available to all during a pandemic. The court is making a flimsy argument that this case is about religious freedom. It is about how these zealots are choosing to assemble during a public health crisis. This reckless court decision places the interests religious sects over the health and well-being of the greater good. These biased interpretations of the law are to be expected now that the court is packed with right wing conservatives.
Unelected religious zealots are about to force their beliefs onto our lives. What about the constitutional guarantee of freedom FROM religion?
“Freedom from every religion but mine” is the new motto
God is near
Never fear
God is near
Have a beer
Brett is here!
Some BLM protesters were peaceful, while some weren’t. Some BLM protesters worse masks, while some didn’t. There’s nothing racial about any of that. Peaceful, warlike, masks and no masks are all free will choices. 😐🔔
Cain could have caught covid anywhere. He could have died from something else. Who knows. Cain made a free will choice to attend that rally, which can’t be blamed on Trump-unless Trump dragged him there. 😐
Trump is responsible for holding an indoor rally in Tulsa in defiance of CDC guidelines.
He is also responsible for encouraging those who refuse to wear masks.
Yes what you post is true. ☹️
Cain and other maskless attendees could have stayed home or at least, wore masks too. 😐
Willing and Abel
No one is to blame
Except for really Cain
Cuz Cain was really willing
And Abel for the killing
There is no free will involved when it comes to religious or other gatherings that worship an ideology designed to replace individual thought with dogma.
Clearly, religious freedom needs to be redefined. Religion and other ideological convictions are private matters which require no large public brainwashing sessions.
Homelessness and poverty can be easily eliminated in this country by converting churches and other resources used to maintain ideology for this purpose.
Just think about what could be done with that 10% which are so readily given to religious organizations.
Given the reaction over George Soros being Jewish (which some others and I never knew, nor did Soros really discuss much), The US Supreme Court isn’t ruling against Hasidic Jews, no matter what they do. What court wants to be involved in (perceived) religious matters? The ADL would scream discrimination and anti-semitism. ☹️
The US Supreme Court isn’t involved with Roman Catholic priests who don’t report confessionals of a criminal nature either. ☹️
Read excerpts of the decision below and the 1905 decision it overturned
Re: the blog post’s referenced legal cases-
Americans United (advocates for separation of church and state) submitted an Amicus brief signed by 12 religious and interfaith groups. Signees included four Jewish groups,
1 each Methodist and Presbyterian groups and 2 Church of Christ groups (including a governing body). There were no specified signees from the “big tent” of the protected religion.