• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

here's hoping it gets Georgians out in force for the good guys. (Not holding my breath)
 
deaconson said:
here's hoping it gets Georgians out in force for the good guys. (Not holding my breath)
Click to expand...

After seeing the results in 2016 and 2020 I'm not optimistic. Democrats will be lucky if they win even one of those races (probably Warnock is the most likely winner, but I wouldn't count on it.) The GOP is already rolling out the time-tested, proven "Both Democrats are Socialist Marxists who will raise taxes and Hate America!" card.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
Click to expand...

It would be a serious stretch to call the situation here a taking under the 5th amendment. As the article notes, the appellants are basically asking the Court to invent a new type of taking. If they do, that’s some real judicial activism. Another thought. If it’s a taking, they could award nominal “just compensation.”
 
Yeah just another case of America first selfish attitudes. I don’t give a shit if you want to form a cult and drink the spiked kool aid more power to you and your death. However when you want to then jeopardize other people’s health, safety, and way of life you can straight fuck off. That applies to pretty much all religion trying to impose themselves on others in any negative way.
 
DeaconCav06 said:
You’re still free not to attend church.
Click to expand...

And I'm also free to get infected by some kook who felt the need to attend a super spreader event at his church so he could go speak in tongues, and free to suffer with everyone else through a longer lockdown so nuts across the country can get together to pray the virus goes away. Dumb.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
WakeBored said:
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.
Click to expand...

Don’t act like it’s such an obviously correct decision when the fucking Chief Justice disagreed.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
Don’t act like it’s such an obviously correct decision when the fucking Chief Justice disagreed.
Click to expand...

That and these churches were treated as favorably or more favorably than other secular institutions/entities with respect to restrictions, so he is full of shit on that as well (Just like his hack, activist judges).
 
wakelaw13 said:
It would be a serious stretch to call the situation here a taking under the 5th amendment.
Click to expand...

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.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
Don’t act like it’s such an obviously correct decision when the fucking Chief Justice disagreed.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Junebug just read the SCOTUS blog and regurgitated. Looks like he won't respond to me, but read Sotomayor's dissent if you want accuracy and not activist bullshit.
 
WakeBored said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here, I'll even make it easy for you:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf
 
WakeBored said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
wakelaw13 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree that the major SCOTUS takings cases involve takings that have more of an element of permanency to them than this, but, I think this could be conceptualized as analogous because, although the access allowed is intermittent, the regulation itself is permanent.

Also, if a court were to conclude this regulation was a taking and that it didn't serve a public purpose, the remedy wouldn't be "just compensation." The regulation would be struck down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top