WakeForestRanger
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 22,959
- Reaction score
- 1,169
here's hoping it gets Georgians out in force for the good guys. (Not holding my breath)
Pro-life party. Junebug jerks his little skintag.
You’re still free not to attend church.
You’re still free not to attend church.
Yeah and fuck public health, amirite? Let the hospitals fill up. Government can't keep us from filling up a building and spewing our droplets around each other.
You obviously didn't read the opinion. The prohibition at issue precludes more than 10 or 25 people, depending on whether located in the red or orange zone, from attending a religious ceremony, regardless of the size of the building and the safety measures being taken inside (such as a mask requirement), and despite the fact that there is no prohibition on gathering size for such "essential" activities as acupuncture, liquor sales, and bicycle repair shops.
The issue is disparate treatment of religion. No one is saying governments can't limit religious services in response to a pandemic. What this case means is that governments can't single out religion for excessively harsh treatment when compared against on other types of gatherings. That's all.
Don’t act like it’s such an obviously correct decision when the fucking Chief Justice disagreed.
It would be a serious stretch to call the situation here a taking under the 5th amendment.
Don’t act like it’s such an obviously correct decision when the fucking Chief Justice disagreed.
Don't act like the fucking Chief Justice disagreed with a word I posted.
His dissent was based solely on the fact that New York moved the church/synagogue at issue into the yellow zone--with a 50% limitation on occupancy instead of the 10 / 25 person limitation--and, thus, there was no need to issue an injunction. As to the merits, he said "Numerical capacity limits of 10 and 25 people, depending on the applicable zone, do seem unduly restrictive. And it may well be that such restrictions violate the Free Exercise Clause."
It really would help your understanding of SCOTUS opinions to read them and not rely on what tweeters tell you about it.
Would it though? How is this different from an easement?
The argument that striking down this law will invalidate building codes and governmental safety inspections strikes me as nothing more than a scare tactic. It seems to me that there is a very clear distinction between requiring a landowner to allow access to unions versus governmental safety inspectors in that the latter has a very clear public purpose whereas the former serves the public in a more attenuated way. Even if a court didn't want to go down that road, a court could easily hold that quasi-easements for governmental inspections and building codes are, by dint of their long history in developed countries, built-in limitations on the background bundle of rights that a property owner acquires when they acquire land.
I am not aware of any easement that requires the user to submit an application to the government before using. It lacks the permanency of an easement. The types of takings recognized under the 5th amendment are highly specific and limited. This doesn’t fit in any category, which appears uncontested. That’s why they’re asking the Court to create a new type of taking. And back to my point, the “just compensation” for allowing meaningful access to labor representatives for employees most at need could be considered nominal.
I am in favor of strong property rights. I could probably be talked into a new type of taking under more extreme circumstances than the ones in this case. But if this is a taking, I would rule that “just compensation” would be nominal. Give them $1, and let law students have a field day.