Quote:

---

I agree 100%. Roberts is a POS and votes based on desired outcomes and perceptions of the court and not on the basis of law.

---

LOL. No, he IS basing his decisions on the law as opposed to a desired political outcome. Face it, the joy at being able to replace RBG with another Trump appointee on the court was absolutely ensuring conservative political outcomes. I agree that it would be better to recommend restrictions instead of mandating them, but the mandate is NOT a State attempt to control religious beliefs, or the practice thereof, which is what the Constitution protects against. Gathering to worship in a church is a great way to publicly express your faith, but hardly necessary. Pure and simple, people don't like being told what to do. THAT is understandable, but wrong headed as a mandate is, claiming that it's a State attempt to control religion is misplaced.

It's frightening that 4 Supreme Court justices could side with the tyrannical and completely unconstitutional decrees that states have issued under the guise of states of emergency.

I think states of emergency powers should be reigned in. It's being completely abused.

Gap said:

---

Americans owe President Donald Trump an enormous thank you for giving back to us the founding principles of our nation and government via his appointments to the Supreme Court.

---

This x 100000000000000000000

That_Guy_Moose said:

---

Imagine being this upset over a case conservatives won.

---

Imagine not wanting supreme court justices that actually protect the rights of the citizens from the excesses of executive branch encroachments.

13B said:

---

It is not a conservative vs liberal issue. It should have been unanimous. Freedom of religion and right to assembly are the cornerstones of what our republic was built upon. The fact that you view it as a political issue is disgusting. Unfortunately, conservatives fall into that same trap due to the left always making it political instead of constitutional.

---

Absolutely. This should be a 9-0 opinion if there ever was one. Some of our most fundamental rights are gone and others are hanging by a 5-4 thread. It is both terrifying and sickening

That_Guy_Moose said:

---

Imagine being this upset over a case conservatives won.

---

Are there any rights you are not ok with the Marxists infringing?

Why is there no restriction to accessing abortion clinics but there are to houses of worship?

DannyDuberstein said:

---

13B said:

---

It is not a conservative vs liberal issue. It should have been unanimous. Freedom of religion and right to assembly are the cornerstones of what our republic was built upon. The fact that you view it as a political issue is disgusting. Unfortunately, conservatives fall into that same trap due to the left always making it political instead of constitutional.

---

Absolutely. This should be a 9-0 opinion if there ever was one. Some of our most fundamental rights are gone and others are hanging by a 5-4 thread. It is both terrifying and sickening

---

Why do you think Ted Cruz wrote his book One Vote Away...

I'm very familiar with it. And you'll find no bigger Cruz fan than me

DannyDuberstein said:

---

I'm very familiar with it. And you'll find no bigger Cruz fan than me

---

I'm a Cruz fan, and I'm bigger than you.

AggiePops said:

---

Quote:

---

I agree 100%. Roberts is a POS and votes based on desired outcomes and perceptions of the court and not on the basis of law.

---

LOL. No, he IS basing his decisions on the law as opposed to a desired political outcome. Face it, the joy at being able to replace RBG with another Trump appointee on the court was absolutely ensuring conservative political outcomes. I agree that it would be better to recommend restrictions instead of mandating them, but the mandate is NOT a State attempt to control religious beliefs, or the practice thereof, which is what the Constitution protects against. Gathering to worship in a church is a great way to publicly express your faith, but hardly necessary. Pure and simple, people don't like being told what to do. THAT is understandable, but wrong headed as a mandate is, claiming that it's a State attempt to control religion is misplaced.

---

Telling people they can't attend church in person is not controlling their religious practices? Are you kidding me? The whole reason people go to church is to pray together as a group and worship God together in the presence of God. Sorry you don't see church as necessary but some people do in order for them to feel close to God. If they are worried about covid, then they can make the choice to stay home. No one is forcing them to go.

That_Guy_Moose said:

---

Imagine being this upset over a case conservatives won.

---

Imagine logistically working it out in your mind, that we are one vote away from having our 1st Amendment right pissed and spat on by despot governors.

If you were able to do the above then you might be upset too.

FCBlitz said:

---

They must have a whole set of porn video's on Roberts.

---

Who would do porn w/Roberts?

ravingfans said:

---

inoffensive username said:

---

Faustus said:

---

Fun fact - Supreme Court justice has no education, age, profession, or citizenship requirement.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx

If you really want someone that there's no chance will infuriate with intellectual independence after taking the bench - stop nominating Judges.

POTUS would be a hilarious choice you know would never be on the wrong side of a decision.

---

I think The Pirate would be a bad ass Supreme Court judge.

---

and by The Pirate, you are referring to Mike Leach, right? That would absolutely be the most exciting SCOTUS appointee ever. bar none!

he already knows how to "hold court"

---

That would be who I was referring too

Conservative Ag said:

---

Roberts is such a *****. He's a terrible justice.

---

You only have to look at who nominated him.

Leather Tuscadero said:

---

I think Robert is hellbent in trying to push the appearance of the court being non-political. What he doesn't seem to get is that in doing so he's make the court political. Rule based on law and how you perceive it. Let the chips fall where they may.

---

What is absolutely pathetic, is that the application of The Constitution to current laws is considered "politicized" in its interpretation. And that is almost always an affront to the Left. If that does not clarify that The Constitution is an obstacle to them, nothing does.

Faustus said:

---

Old Sarge said:

---

You never hear about a SCOTUS or other Judge turning "conservative" once appointed. It is always the other way around. Appointed by a "conservative" but turning left upon appointment "when it counts". Roberts, case in point.

It is one of two things:

A case of a leftist at heart waiting patiently, acting conservative, to get to the highest point they can, then turn left to affect all they can. A true believer in the leftist cause that is "hide" to get as high as they can be, before legislating from the bench.

Or, a judge that has something in his life that is so devastating, it would wreck EVERYTHING in his personal life beyond repair if it got out and he would vote against his understanding of the law to preserve his life as he knew it.

Roberts is one of the two. Pick one.

Nobody turns like that otherwise.

---

Fun fact - Supreme Court justice has no education, age, profession, or citizenship requirement.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx

If you really want someone that there's no chance will infuriate with intellectual independence after taking the bench - stop nominating Judges.

POTUS would be a hilarious choice you know would never be on the wrong side of a decision.

---

I heard Robert Bork of all people once opine that he thought some political scientists (non-lawyers) would make good USSC justices when asked. I don't think so and I can't understand why Bork would say this. At the time, I hadn't attended law school and wondered. Now, I think the opinion is borderline insane for the sole reason that no non-lawyer would truly understand the concept of legal jurisprudence. They might get it after a while but the USSC is no place for on the job training.

However, with that said, one doesn't have to have been any specific kind of lawyer, judge, or whatever. Heck, I'd say they'd just need to have attended law school and be able to at least outline a legal brief for decision making purposes. The thing I'd like to see changed with respect to appointing justices, and this goes to Roberts and others in terms of changing their stripes once they get there, is to STOP appointing justices that went to Ivy League and other so-called prestigious law schools. Most of the states' flagship universities have a good law school (and I've always said law school is, in general, law school). Appoint someone who went to Alabama, OU, Utah, Iowa. Hell, Arkansas for that matter.

OK, I went too far on the last one, but you get the idea. (Don't laugh about OU; it really is a pretty decent law school. The worst thing about it is having to live in Oklahoma for 3 years).

Are you an OU law grad???

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Faustus said:

---

Old Sarge said:

---

You never hear about a SCOTUS or other Judge turning "conservative" once appointed. It is always the other way around. Appointed by a "conservative" but turning left upon appointment "when it counts". Roberts, case in point.

It is one of two things:

A case of a leftist at heart waiting patiently, acting conservative, to get to the highest point they can, then turn left to affect all they can. A true believer in the leftist cause that is "hide" to get as high as they can be, before legislating from the bench.

Or, a judge that has something in his life that is so devastating, it would wreck EVERYTHING in his personal life beyond repair if it got out and he would vote against his understanding of the law to preserve his life as he knew it.

Roberts is one of the two. Pick one.

Nobody turns like that otherwise.

---

Fun fact - Supreme Court justice has no education, age, profession, or citizenship requirement.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx

If you really want someone that there's no chance will infuriate with intellectual independence after taking the bench - stop nominating Judges.

POTUS would be a hilarious choice you know would never be on the wrong side of a decision.

---

I heard Robert Bork of all people once opine that he thought some political scientists (non-lawyers) would make good USSC justices when asked. I don't think so and I can't understand why Bork would say this. At the time, I hadn't attended law school and wondered. Now, I think the opinion is borderline insane for the sole reason that no non-lawyer would truly understand the concept of legal jurisprudence. They might get it after a while but the USSC is no place for on the job training.

However, with that said, one doesn't have to have been any specific kind of lawyer, judge, or whatever. Heck, I'd say they'd just need to have attended law school and be able to at least outline a legal brief for decision making purposes. The thing I'd like to see changed with respect to appointing justices, and this goes to Roberts and others in terms of changing their stripes once they get there, is to STOP appointing justices that went to Ivy League and other so-called prestigious law schools. Most of the states' flagship universities have a good law school (and I've always said law school is, in general, law school). Appoint someone who went to Alabama, OU, Utah, Iowa. Hell, Arkansas for that matter.

OK, I went too far on the last one, but you get the idea. (Don't laugh about OU; it really is a pretty decent law school. The worst thing about it is having to live in Oklahoma for 3 years).

---

I would take practically any Jurist from Arkansas over one from t.u. any day.

Quote:

---

No the point is that YOU don't get to decide what is "necessary" for their faith. And neither does Cuomo. It's a constitution thing, not a matter of law.

---

Correct, on your first point about either myself, or Cuomo, or anyone else, for that matter. You're actually right in principle on your last statement but wrong on your take. The Constitution protects our right to whatever religious beliefs we wish to follow, and allows us to practice those beliefs without any government attempt to control or influence those beliefs. Mandated restrictions are wrong, though well intentioned in trying to protect health, but like them or not they in no way are an attempt to control or influence anyone's beliefs, which is the criteria that should be under consideration.

AggiePops said:

---

Quote:

---

No the point is that YOU don't get to decide what is "necessary" for their faith. And neither does Cuomo. It's a constitution thing, not a matter of law.

---

Correct, on your first point about either myself, or Cuomo, or anyone else, for that matter. You're actually right in principle on your last statement but wrong on your take. The Constitution protects our right to whatever religious beliefs we wish to follow, and allows us to practice those beliefs without any government attempt to control or influence those beliefs. Mandated restrictions are wrong, though well intentioned in trying to protect health, but like them or not they in no way are an attempt to control or influence anyone's beliefs, which is the criteria that should be under consideration.

---

It is not the intention behind the restrictions that should be evaluated when determining its constitutionality, because the intentions of the restriction can never be truly known especially when it is a single individual making the mandate (this is why EO's are bad and why it is the job of the legislature to make laws).

There is no way to know for sure what the intention is. What matters is that in practice and the utility of such restrictions imposes a barrier to the practicing of one's faith and worship in a reasonable manner especially when we now know that such gatherings pose no danger to the health of people especially to the health of people outside of these gatherings.

That fact aside the governors and the government in general has absolutely zero authority to make such restrictions.

AggiePops said:

---

Quote:

---

No the point is that YOU don't get to decide what is "necessary" for their faith. And neither does Cuomo. It's a constitution thing, not a matter of law.

---

Correct, on your first point about either myself, or Cuomo, or anyone else, for that matter. You're actually right in principle on your last statement but wrong on your take. The Constitution protects our right to whatever religious beliefs we wish to follow, and allows us to practice those beliefs without any government attempt to control or influence those beliefs. Mandated restrictions are wrong, though well intentioned in trying to protect health, but like them or not they in no way are an attempt to control or influence anyone's beliefs, which is the criteria that should be under consideration.

---

The black-letter text is "religious expression". Where does it say the government gets to decide what form that expression takes? Where does it say it's subject to public health? There should be a requirement on the government to justify an infringement, and then for a specific period of time.

I'm looking for the "except for" part of the 1st Amendment that 4 ivy league SC justices seem to think exists, but I can't find it.

AggiePops said:

---

Quote:

---

No the point is that YOU don't get to decide what is "necessary" for their faith. And neither does Cuomo. It's a constitution thing, not a matter of law.

---

Correct, on your first point about either myself, or Cuomo, or anyone else, for that matter. You're actually right in principle on your last statement but wrong on your take. The Constitution protects our right to whatever religious beliefs we wish to follow, and allows us to practice those beliefs without any government attempt to control or influence those beliefs. Mandated restrictions are wrong, though well intentioned in trying to protect health, but like them or not they in no way are an attempt to control or influence anyone's beliefs, which is the criteria that should be under consideration.

---

I'm looking for the "it's okay for your religious freedom to be limited as long as they aren't really intending to control you" part of the 1st amendment. Can't seem to find it. They are either preventing you from exercising it or they are not. Period.

The creative mental gymnastics that people are willing to use to justify our rights being infringed upon is fascinating.

Im fairly confident that there is HD video of Roberts with a **** ** *** *** on Epstein's island.

Scalia was murdered.

That_Guy_Moose said:

---

Imagine being this upset over a case conservatives won.

---

Should have been 9-0.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

That_Guy_Moose said:

---

Imagine being this upset over a case conservatives won.

---

Should have been 9-0.

---

Agree. I'm actually more surprised at Kagan. She's supposed to be an avid Jew. Cuomo was targeting them. The whole idea that random public health officials can negate the constitutional right to have free exercise of religion should be anathema to anyone. But being a Jew, she certainly should know better.

I'd wager RBG would have struck it down. She was a staunch lib but not when it came to religious rights being protected from government overreach and suppression.

Covid is love.

Quote:

---

I'm looking for the "it's okay for your religious freedom to be limited as long as they aren't really intending to control you" part of the 1st amendment. Can't seem to find it. They are either preventing you from exercising it or they are not. Period.

The creative mental gymnastics that people are willing to use to justify our rights being infringed upon is fascinating.

---

Lots of things are not specifically spelled out in Constitutional text, but your argument about restricting gathering sizes at church is a weak one. The intent of the Constitution's inclusions about religion are to promote religious freedom by the government being neutral on religion, neither promoting or denying any form of religion. The 2nd Amendment includes a 'free exercise' clause that would seem to validate your argument, except that some limitations (such as forbidding polygamy) have been allowed. Check out the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which was actually a specific 'win'' for conservative religious thinking... and in a more general way, wasn't. It does allow for some government 'burdening' of free exercise if specified conditions are met.

I'm with you in saying they should only ask for restricted/alternate worship and not try to mandate it, and people should then decide for themselves. My point is only that it's questionable and certainly not clear that it's a Constitutional violation. The government of each state when it does announce a restriction does have a clear purpose, one of the RFRA's specifications, in trying to protect the health of its citizens.

AggiePops said:

---

Quote:

---

No the point is that YOU don't get to decide what is "necessary" for their faith. And neither does Cuomo. It's a constitution thing, not a matter of law.

---

Correct, on your first point about either myself, or Cuomo, or anyone else, for that matter. You're actually right in principle on your last statement but wrong on your take. The Constitution protects our right to whatever religious beliefs we wish to follow, and allows us to practice those beliefs without any government attempt to control or influence those beliefs. Mandated restrictions are wrong, though well intentioned in trying to protect health, but like them or not they in no way are an attempt to control or influence anyone's beliefs, which is the criteria that should be under consideration.

---

The problem comes in when we can go to Casinos, Bars, Walmart, Home Depots and Football games with minimal restriction, but cannot go to Church. That is very telling as to the intent of the Left.