Coronavirus

John Roberts Does Not Think California's Special Restrictions on Religious Services Discriminate Against Churches

As SCOTUS declines to issue an injunction, the chief justice says the state's COVID-19 control measures seem consistent with the First Amendment.

|

The Supreme Court last Friday rejected a Chula Vista church's request for an injunction against California's pandemic-inspired restrictions on religious services, an issue that has divided federal appeals courts. In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts argues that the state's COVID-19 control measures seem to be consistent with the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom.

"Although California's guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment," Robert writes. "Similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time. And the Order exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods."

Roberts emphasizes that states have broad authority to protect the public against communicable diseases. "Where those broad limits are not exceeded," he says, "they should not be subject to second-guessing by an 'unelected federal judiciary,' which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people."

Four justices—Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito—disagreed with Roberts' analysis. In a dissenting opinion joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, Kavanaugh rejects Roberts' characterization of California's restrictions as neutral and generally applicable—the standard for avoiding strict scrutiny of policies that impede religious freedom.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom initially planned to let several types of businesses reopen while keeping houses of worship closed—a policy that provoked resistance from thousands of churches and a cautionary letter from the U.S. Department of Justice. On May 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit peremptorily rejected the South Bay United Pentecostal Church's motion for an injunction against Newsom's reopening plan. That decision inspired an 18-page dissent by Judge Daniel Collins, who said "there is no denying" that California's "amalgam of rules is the very antithesis of a 'generally applicable' prohibition." Newsom later revised his plan, saying houses of worship could reopen as long as they limited attendance at services to no more than 100 people and no more than 25 percent of capacity.

"The basic constitutional problem is that comparable secular businesses are not subject to a 25% occupancy cap, including factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries," Kavanaugh writes. He notes that South Bay United Pentecostal Church "is willing to abide by the State's rules that apply to comparable secular businesses, including the rules regarding social distancing and hygiene." But it "objects to a 25% occupancy cap that is imposed on religious worship services but not imposed on those comparable secular businesses."

Kavanaugh quotes repeatedly from a May 9 decision in which a unanimous 6th Circuit panel granted an injunction pending appeal to Maryville Baptist Church, which had challenged Kentucky Gov. Andrew Beshear's lockdown orders. "California undoubtedly has a compelling interest in combating the spread of COVID–19 and protecting the health of its citizens," Kavanaugh says. "But 'restrictions inexplicably applied to one group and exempted from another do little to further these goals and do much to burden religious freedom.' What California needs is a compelling justification for distinguishing between (i) religious worship services and (ii) the litany of other secular businesses that are not subject to an occupancy cap. California has not shown such a justification."

Quoting again from the 6th Circuit ruling, Kavanaugh asks: "Assuming all of the same precautions are taken, why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but not a pew? And why can someone safely interact with a brave deliverywoman but not with a stoic minister?" He adds that "the State cannot 'assume the worst when people go to worship but assume the best when people go to work or go about the rest of their daily lives in permitted social settings.'" Without "a compelling justification (which the State has not offered)," he says, "the State may not take a looser approach with, say, supermarkets, restaurants, factories, and offices while imposing stricter requirements on places of worship."

As far as Kavanaugh and the other dissenters are concerned, it is clear that California is discriminating against religiously motivated conduct. "California's 25% occupancy cap on religious worship services indisputably discriminates against religion," he says, "and such discrimination violates the First Amendment."

Roberts, by contrast, echoes the position that a unanimous 7th Circuit panel took on May 16, when it declined to issue an injunction against restrictions on religious services in Illinois. The 7th Circuit said Illinois was treating churches the same as other settings that pose similar risks of virus transmission, such as "concerts, lectures, theatrical performances, or choir practices, in which groups of people gather together for extended periods."

That analysis seems dubious if a state allows groups of people to gather in workplaces for even longer periods of time, especially when churches agree to follow the same safeguards (which, among other things, eliminate the "close proximity" that worries Roberts). Employees of warehouses and factories—two types of businesses that Newsom categorically exempted from the restrictions he imposed on houses of worship—are allowed to gather for eight hours at a time, much longer than a church service takes. Even visits to grocery stores, shopping malls, restaurants, or laundromats can easily last as long as a church service. Courts that see no First Amendment problem with special restrictions on religious services seem to be reasoning backward from a predetermined conclusion that state and local governments can do whatever they deem appropriate to protect public health.

NEXT: Brickbats: June 2020

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Roberts strikes again! Maybe CA can just penaltax churches into compliance?

    1. Well if those wreckers would just give CA their “fair share” they would let them open to the same extent as any other business.

      1. Of all the failings of the Bush administration, Roberts has to be what, top 5?

        1. Yeah I think that is about right.

          Off the top of my memory:
          1) Iraq
          2) Torture Program
          3) Bailouts
          4) Roberts
          5) Miers into Alito

          1. I’d probably put Medicare pt. D on that list instead of Miers. Her nomination was just a stupid bit of cronyism, remedied after some well-deserved ridicule.

            1. Miers into Alito though and Alito is as bad as Roberts. But I did forget Medicare and another honorable mention; No Child Left Behind.

              1. Make money online from home extra cash more than $18k to $21k. Start getting paid every month Thousands Dollars online. I have received $26K in this month by just working online from home in my part time.every person easily do this job by just open this link and follow details on this page to get started… Continue Reading

            2. Yes. I’d put Medicare pt D ahead of Roberts.

              1. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month . . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

                Heres what I do……………….► Online Jobs Provid

              2. It’s debatable which mistake was worse, but not debatable with regard to the number that have been impacted and its effect on society and culture. I’ll move Roberts up to the top of the list based purely on his Obamacare reversal and sellout. Not only has that one cost every American many thousands of dollars, it set in motion a move to taxpayer funded healthcare that will not be reversed. And since that point, Roberts has often been found on the wrong side of free markets and liberty.

                That’s not where he started. However, I’ll go with the speculation that he has been extorted into submission on the more important matters, as a result of the real information about his illegal adoptions. Putting a man’s children at risk is as much or more a threat as a threatened fall from grace from a lifetime appointment in one of the most powerful positions on the planet.

        2. PATRIOT act is obvious no. 1.

  2. And the Order exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods.

    That doesn’t make any sense either! Even if grocery stores are restricting the number of people in the building at any given time, you’re talking about a large number of people in total, probably far more than the attendance of an average church service. The likelihood of transmission has to be similar, if not higher.

    1. Yes, but you don’t understand…
      Even woke liberals have to use grocery stores and their trust funds are tied up with banks, whereas it’s only the germ-carrying, Orange-Hitler-voting hoi polloi who infest religious institutions.
      Can you see now why it’s important?

      1. Now do Mosques.

        1. What do you call a small mosque?

          A mosquito.

        2. Vital community links for minorities who are doing important work.

    2. doesn’t make sense because John Roberts is terrible @mental gymnastics

    3. The virus transmission depends on
      1) Proximity
      2) Amount of virus shedding (depends on where in the course of disease a transmitting person is)
      3) Length of time of exposure

      I agree that working in a factory for 8 hours probably puts you at risk more than sitting in a church or a concert for 2 hours. People grocery shopping don’t usually take more than 1 hour, and usually less than 1/2 hour. Factory work that is allowed is usually considered “essential” work (supports daily living).

      I suppose if you are very religious you could consider getting your weekly sermon and wafer and out of the hands of your priest essential also.

      1. There’s no constitutional test for “essential services”, which would include liquor stores and getting smokes at your 7-11. Neither is there a constitutional exemption to the 1A for an emergency.

      2. Is everybody forgetting that walking through a grocery store, ESPECIALLY the produce section, exposes other people’s FOOD to your viral load?

        The restrictions on restaurants and groceries should actually be STRICTER than religious services…if they were actually worried about virus transmission and not the transmission of contrary values to those of the State…

  3. Can’t see the forest for the trees.
    Lockdowns are the problem.

  4. Courts that see no First Amendment problem with special restrictions on religious services seem to be reasoning backward from a predetermined conclusion that state and local governments can do whatever they deem appropriate to protect public health.

    Believing in a fantasy character in the sky is unhealthy, especially when you have a real savior right here on earth in your local courthouse.

    1. Justice Roberts may not have died for your sins, but he’d love to judge you for them.

      1. HA!

  5. Sigh, although I am not happy with this decision, I can at least understand and accept it.

    Why are mass transit and airplanes treated different than churches?

    1. Mass transit and airplanes aren’t a waste of time.

      1. *tips fedora*

      2. ZZ Top disagrees.

        1. Have mercy… the link doesn’t work for me. But “Jesus Just Left Chicago” right after “Waitin’ for the Bus.” Seems they are equivalent.

          1. Links working for me. Might have been a glitch.

            1. I’m guessing I guessed the target of the link correctly? In which case, thanks for having mercy on me.

              1. Yes you did.

        2. my head’s in Mississippi

          1. Can you report on whether the muddy water turned to wine?

            1. different guy. i’m shuffling through the Texas sands…

      3. I’m not much about sitting in a pew. But I’ll take that without question over sitting in a 7′ diameter tube with a closed high pressure air system blowing every drop off your neighbor’s face up into the air, unable to get up and move even if someone starts vomiting. Thanks, but I’ve gotten the flu twice and several colds on an airplane, and I don’t fly that much. It’s not a matter of prediction but certainty that should I go sit in a pew, I won’t be stuck between two slobbering fatties and threatened with arrest if I move.

    2. The arrangement of people in religious services is more similar to theaters, athletic contests, and concerts than it is to restaurants and grocery stores. Many people are in close proximity to each other. As important, transmission of the virus is more likely when people are singing, shouting, cheering, or speaking directly to one another.

      I am not happy with the outcome, but it does make sense. I would be happier if they said all the restrictions are unconstitutional due to the 1st Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law respecting … the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” The case was argued on the wrong basis.

      1. BigT, I too understand the decision, and I am not thrilled with it. Chiefly because I don’t see a difference between the secular activities of mass transit and airplanes and synagogues.

        My beef is nobody seems to be able to articulate a clear standard; a bright line.

  6. There are three things that are of significant importance here.
    1: Church services, even at 25% capacity, are still relatively crowded compared to a factory. In a normal service, people are shoulder to shoulder, with nearly 20 people in a six foot radius. In most factories, workers are either isolated or in isolated teams of 2-4 people, often with nearly 50 feet between the teams. In an office, you typically have a desk or are in a cubicle, and are relatively isolated. In a church, you will have a lot more people present. Additionally, there are narrow antechambers and entrances that form bottleneck crowds that cannot be reasonably avoided.
    2: Singing. Song projects much further than normal speaking, both in sound and in airborne spittle (the important part for this discussion). When you are singing, the 6 foot social distancing distance projects out significantly further.
    3: The elderly. The vast majority of COVID deaths are in the elderly, who are also far more likely to attend church services. While for the population as a whole, COVID is about as deadly as measles, it’s far more deadly to seniors.

    Even if you ignore or modify ceremonies such as the Eucharist, which obviously has a huge chance for communication of disease, the majority of religious services would be much more likely to spread contagion than other uses and affect people at higher risk as well.

    1. In a normal service, people are shoulder to shoulder
      Only twice a year, unless you’re at an AME.

      Song projects much further than normal speaking
      Most people just mumble along.

      1. As a paid soloist at a church I have to sing quite fully, and yes it does project much further. My church is not even opening its doors apart from streaming until next year regardless of rules.

        1. I said most people. And you’re standing in the middle of a crowd when you’re doing it?

        2. And drinking the communal cup for Catholics is at times suspended for things like cold and flu season so no problem there

          1. Our local parishes (Ohio) have re-opened with modified protocols. People are separated by family and only in every second pew. Entrance and exit are separated. Wine is out. Communion is distributed with tweezers at the door as people leave. Simple.

          2. I’m kinda ashamed for you that you were unable to imagine obvious and far safer alternatives before you wrote that.

    2. the Eucharist, which obviously has a huge chance for communication of disease

      Only if it’s a communal cup which is pretty much limited to Catholics.
      Most Protestant sects use plastic disposable cups like these.

      1. Can the ‘Rona survive transubstantiation?

      2. Even in individual cups, you still have a tray of cups barely close distance that are being breathed on and incidentally touched, lines of people coming to the alter, and handing of wafers has a significant amount of contact between people. If nothing else, the reverend is getting exposed to everyone, and everyone is getting exposed to the reverend.

        1. “Even in individual cups, you still have a tray of cups barely close distance that are being breathed on and incidentally touched, lines of people coming to the alter, and handing of wafers has a significant amount of contact between people.”
          Pretty sure that there’s nothing in Christian doctrine that precludes the use of rubber gloves when handling the bread or requiring the disposable plastic cups be tightly clustered.

          Also, “lines of people coming to the alter” is primarily a Catholic tradition as well, and doesn’t apply across the board.

          I think your just hunting for reasons now.

          1. Umm, no. How else do you do communion? I’ve been to a lot of churches. While there was one that passed the bread and wine down the pews, almost all of them, you go to the altar to receive the bread and wine.

            And rubber gloves wouldn’t help. You pick it up and place it in someone’s hands. There’s your potential cross-contamination. It doesn’t matter what utensil you use, there will be at least some incidental contact and transmissability in a congregation beyond a trivial size.

            I’m not reaching. You are ignoring the point by pretending that something insecurable can be secured. The very nature of the ceremony requires either close contact between people or everyone in contact with a common bowl or serving utensil. There’s no magic way to avoid that central problem.

            1. I don’t know how humanity has survived for so long under such fragile conditions.

            2. I was kinda ashamed for you that you were unable to imagine obvious and far safer alternatives before you wrote the first one. But I’m more ashamed for you that you had a chance to revisit this after thinking through it for 5 hours and still can’t find any reasonable alternatives.

    3. Wouldn’t a mask address #2?

      Can you tell me how mass transit and airplanes are somehow different than a morning service?

      1. This is how.

        Every Philly guy knows what I’m talking about.

        1. riding on the Escalator of Life…

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsR8pDMi4s8

          1. I’m a personal friend of Gloria Vanderbilt.

      2. We have been told since the beginning that masks are nearly completely ineffective against coronavirus transmission. It’s mostly theater to make people feel more safe. The closer you keep people the longer, the less meaningful the small protection masks give. That is, if you can have people keep them on the entire service, which you know they won’t. They will be taking them off for ventilation and adjustment.

        1. Ben…And it is different than mass transit and airplanes how….?

  7. John Roberts hates Jesus.

    1. Just the opposite. He’s doing everything he can to make sure the religious survive while the heathens die.

      1. John Roberts loves grandmas

        1. He’s a perevert!

    2. He’s just following precedent.

      1. …in hating Jesus?

        1. See Romans v Jesus. Decision written by Pontius Pilate.

          1. hilarious.

  8. I will say this is a mischaracterisation of Roberts opinion. He categorized churches as buildings more similar to theaters and other places where people congregate for an extended period. This was the distinction from grocery stores and the like. Other businesses in this category are under the same restrictions as churches. He also indicated that the courts should not be injecting themselves in basic public safety determinations.

    1. How about the words “Congress shall make no law” and “free exercise” in light of their incorporation against the states? Should courts inject themselves into that argument?

    2. Roberts emphasizes that states have broad authority to protect the public against communicable diseases. “Where those broad limits are not exceeded,” he says, “they should not be subject to second-guessing by an ‘unelected federal judiciary,’ which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people.”

      Neither are the unelected health professionals accountable to the people. FAIL.

  9. SCOTUS made the right call. To rule otherwise would open the door to religious people demanding to be exempt from any health regulations that they don’t like. They already have an “employment law free zone”, don’t give them a “public health free zone”.

    1. Indeed, give EVERYONE an employment law free and public health free zone!!

      1. I don’t think the workers would like that much, they kinda like not being killed on the job, getting paid at least a minimum wage, the right to organize, overtime, and protection from discrimination. And all those that like not being poisoned at restaurants like public health.

        1. I don’t think the workers would like that much

          Every worker I know thinks OSHA is BS and that they are perfectly capable of looking out for their own safety.

          they kinda like not being killed on the job

          They’re employers also kinda like having workers who aren’t dead.

          the right to organize

          Which is a right, and thus is not granted by law, but there have been attempts to make laws against organizing.

          overtime

          The laws on overtime are astoundingly weak. It’s by-and-large the market that pays overtime. I don’t get overtime, for example, under any circumstances, yet I typically don’t work any overtime, either.

          protection from discrimination

          Aren’t all the riots about the government’s failure to do exactly that?

          And all those that like not being poisoned at restaurants like public health.

          You know who else doesn’t want people to be poisoned at restaurants?

          Yup. Hitler.

          1. The horrible state of workplace safety and massive abuse of workers in the lat 1800s and early 1900s proves that those laws are needed. Same with public health during the same period.

            1. “The horrible state of workplace safety and massive abuse of workers in the lat 1800s and early 1900s proves that those laws are needed.”

              You.
              Are.
              Full.
              Of.
              Shit.

              1. Go read “The Jungle”.

                1. Go read something less than 100 years old.

                  1. That book is sadly still relevant.

                    1. You should get a better job.

  10. Roberts writes illogical opinion protecting big government. News at 10.

    1. This is my shocked face:

  11. To all the people who went along with ‘common sense gun control’ and laughed at the right wing clingers – – – – –
    “Told you so!”

  12. Roberts comments appeared to have been pre-written with a broad brush just waiting for an event such as this to happen. It is clear that his comments could also be applied to shutting down firearm ownership and or access or even acquisition should a Governor by edict so decide.
    Roberts words that he deliberately used were not about religious worship as much as they were about political control above and beyond the Constitution. He has done this to deliberately aid the progressive leftist of the United States and to protect fascist leadership styles of the left.

    1. The left now has the Precedent ruling they have always wanted. This makes Roberts the most Evil Bastard to ever lead the Supreme Court – he knew exactly what he was doing to make the leftist long game shorter.
      Robert decsion is the most telling piece of Judicial activism by any member of the SCOTUS in US history.

      1. Is it really any worse that Wickard v Filburn that allowed the government to regulate LITERALLY anything as “interstate commerce,” even INACTIVITY?

        I don’t disagree that this decision is horribly wrong, but I’m not sure it’s clearly worse…nope, I think you’re right, this gives Top Men at ALL levels the “authority” to crack down on people, not just Congressional Top Men…

    2. Exactly! It basically puts local government officials on a pedestal of expertise on public health and the right to overrule any constitutionally protected right, based exclusively on their authority and right to decide what is healthy and what is or isn’t an emergency. Sub out here a governor who decides that guns are a public menace and decides to seize them.

      It also presumes an inability or lack of right for people to decide risks on their own, and the right of government [otherwise known as the deviant next door that somehow got elected] to decide what’s in your best interests so long as he deems it in the public best interests.

  13. “According to Roberts, the state’s treatment of churches is not actually dissimilar from its treatment of ‘comparable secular gatherings.'” Which has also been wrong. The whole lockdown and government usurpation of individual decision-making is fucking wrong. So great: The state’s treating the churches as unconstitutionally as it is everyone else. Congratulations.

    “The state ‘exempts or treats more leniently only similar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods.” Close proximity…like they’re in when they’re confined under house arrest? Like that?

    “Politically accountable officials…’should not be subject to second-guessing by an unelected federal judiciary which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people.'” LOL. Yeah, those otherwise-unemployable bureaucratic hacks who have changed their tune twelve times since February: They don’t have the background, competence, and expertise to assess whether or not they should take a big steaming shit today. “Second-guessing” them, i.e. applying constitutional checks and balances to them, is *exactly* the SC’s job.

    “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” Actually, twatface, it’s exactly your job: to protect the rights of the minority from the political choices of the majority. Without that we have the mob rule of democracy, not a constitutionally limited republic with protected, enumerated rights. When they interview these retards for the job, do they not ask questions to see whether they understand their basic function?

    1. The constitution doesn’t grant religious institutions the same rights as businesses or the practice of religion the same rights as going shopping. By name and as located in the first of all the Amendments, it grants them superlative rights, a concept which Roberts either doesn’t understand or ignores.

  14. This ruling looks like it was rewritten waiting for an opportunity just waiting to be applied.
    The left now has the Precedent ruling that they have always wanted. He has done this to deliberately aid the progressive leftist of the United States and to protect fascist leadership styles of the left.

    This makes Roberts the most Evil Bastard to ever lead the Supreme Court – he knew exactly what he was doing to make the leftist long game shorter.
    Robert decision is the most telling piece of Judicial activism by any member of the SCOTUS in US history.
    And as a precedent will be used to defend the actions of any Perverse anti-constitutional Governor or Mayor or even a future Democrat President.

  15. I’d call Roberts the 21st century’s Roger B. Taney, but I think he’d get a kick out of it.

  16. Is this the same asshole who thought Obamacare was a wonderful idea?

    1. Not until that 3 am phone call which magically changed his opinion on Obamacare. One has to wonder what they came up with in the middle of the night after he’d written the first 70% of the majority opinion for the other side, and then the last 19 pages and conclusion for the other side. Someone flipped a switch and then him. He hasn’t been right ever since.

  17. Roberts is more dangerous than Ginsburg. Pray for his death.

  18. Roberts is a disgrace

  19. He could have struck down Obamacare, and did not. This action is no surprise. Terrible choice by Bush II, but what do we expect?

  20. Acts 4:17-20
    “But so that it will not spread any further among the people, let us warn them to speak no longer to any man in this name. And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.”

    Matthew 10:28 says, “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

    It looks like it’s time for California Christians to either put up or shut up with the pretense. If there are any TRUE CHRISTIANS in California, they will assemble for worship as they please and let come what may. Remember, we are only obligated to obey MAN’S LAW so long as it does NOT conflict with God’s law. When man’s law conflicts with God’s law, to the Christian GOD’S LAW ALWAYS REIGNS SUPREME.
    What does God say about assembling to worship? Hebrews 10:25
    “not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near”

  21. Folks it appears that everyone, up to and including the SCOTUS, is losing sight of the big picture here.

    This isn’t about churches and it isn’t about COVID-19. This is about the integrity of the entire U.S. Constitution–not just the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment, but the whole kit and caboodle.

    By definition, the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the nation. It can’t be suspended or modified or preempted without going through the amendment process. There are no escape clauses in the Constitution that allow it to be trumped (pardon the pun) in times of crisis or “national emergency.”

    What this ruling means is that governors, legislatures, and unelected bureaucrats now have carte blanche to suspend the Constitution by fiat and by whim–all they have to do is declare a “state of emergency,” and they have free rein to trample any of our constitutional protections.

    The authors of the Constitution understood this. They knew that granting any branch or level of the government to suspend the Constitution was a recipe for tyranny.

    Here’s what’s going to happen: We will find ourselves in a perpetual state of crisis, real or fabricated, giving governments all the reason they need to eliminate, more or less permanently, our Constitutional rights.

    Today it’s church services. In the next crisis, it will be shutting down or controlling media outlets, seizing our guns, sending people to internment camps without charge or trial, and who knows what else. Mark my words: This is a slippery slope, and we’re on a headlong dive to the bottom.

    1. Yup. Its tyranny all the way down.

      Trump mostly keeping the federal government out of the kungflu mandate business is really the only thing keeping this whole house of cards from falling. The states are do plenty of damage on their own but the glimmer of hope is that Americans are fighting back. The media might not cover it in a way that shows the challenging of tyranny but clearly Americans are hating tyrannical government more and more.

    2. “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

      -H.L. Mencken

  22. John Roberts is not doing his job and refuses to follow the constitution.

    Impeach his ass!

    1. It’s worse than not following the Constitution. Some of his opinions are simply bizarre.

  23. Galt’s Gulch I think you are correct.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.