9th FED Circuit Court backs Newsome

[Pauls' Revere]

First Amendment be damned.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/federal-co...opstories.html

A federal appeals court has backed California Gov. Gavin Newsom's stay-at-home order banning in-church services to blunt the spread of coronavirus, rejecting an argument from clerics that the governor is treading on their First Amendment right to free exercise of their religious beliefs.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a split 2-1 ruling denying the request for a temporary restraining order against Newsom's in-church service ban filed this month by the South Bay United Pentecostal Church in Chula Vista, California.

The ruling was issued late on Friday, the same day President Donald Trump demanded governors nationwide allow churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship to reopen immediately.

[RonZeplin]

[Anti Globalist]

Not shocking that the 9th circuit would agree with Newsom.

[sparebulb]

Surprise!

Politicians in black ceremonial robes uphold fellow politicians.

Well, there it is.....

It is "legal".

[Pauls' Revere]

Surprise!

Politicians in black ceremonial robes uphold fellow politicians.

Well, there it is.....

It is "legal".

Precedent set.

[Pauls' Revere]

Is it possible to break up the judicial circuits? Say make CA,OR,WA,AK,HI,Guam the 9th and put NV,MT,ID,AZ, into a newly created 12th circuit?

[jkr]

Just them

[CCTelander]

Surprise!

Politicians in black ceremonial robes uphold fellow politicians.

Well, there it is.....

It is "legal".

Shocking, isn't it?

Resist and defy, and support and protect others who do so.

[Created4]

First Amendment be damned.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/federal-co...opstories.html

A federal appeals court has backed California Gov. Gavin Newsom's stay-at-home order banning in-church services to blunt the spread of coronavirus, rejecting an argument from clerics that the governor is treading on their First Amendment right to free exercise of their religious beliefs.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a split 2-1 ruling denying the request for a temporary restraining order against Newsom's in-church service ban filed this month by the South Bay United Pentecostal Church in Chula Vista, California.

The ruling was issued late on Friday, the same day President Donald Trump demanded governors nationwide allow churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship to reopen immediately.

It was litigated wrong, in my opinion. The lockdowns are Unconstitutional period, and there is no definable religious prejudice here, as it is applied to all "non-essential" businesses and churches are not singled out on the basis of their religious beliefs.

This is the key in the ruling:

We’re dealing here with a highly contagious and often fatal disease for which there presently is no known cure.

THAT'S what need to be challenged and ligated. It needs to be shown that this no worse than a serious flu bug, and these measures were not warranted across the board for everyone in the population (maybe just nursing homes and elderly care.)

There is no religious discrimination here, so the ruling is basically correct based on this erroneous assumption, which apparently was never challenged.

[Created4]

Precedent set.

I don't think so. Other states have challenged the authority to lockdown and have won (like Wisconsin). People in Wisconsin can now go to church, just as easily as they can go to their Taverns.

[acptulsa]

It There is no religious discrimination here, so the ruling is basically correct based on this erroneous assumption, which apparently was never challenged.

There is plenty of religious discrimination here. Thus discriminates against everyone whose religion involves gathering together in fellowship.

[Swordsmyth]

SCOTUS will overrule.

[eleganz]

Anybody at all surprised why the ruling went down this way? These judges are apparently selected at random, right...

Judges - Appointed by;

Jacqueline Nguyen - Obama
Barry Silverman - Clinton

[Created4]

There is plenty of religious discrimination here. Thus discriminates against everyone whose religion involves gathering together in fellowship.

Where's the religious discrimination? How is it different from schools and other non-religious gatherings that were also banned?

[Swordsmyth]

Anybody at all surprised why the ruling went down this way? These judges are apparently selected at random, right...

Judges - Appointed by;

Jacqueline Nguyen - Obama
Barry Silverman - Clinton

Judges are the best reason to re-elect Trump.

Judges rule the land under the current system.

[acptulsa]

SCOTUS will overrule.

Where's the religious discrimination? How is it different from schools and other non-religious gatherings that were also banned?

There are religions-- both theism and atheism, for example--which do not involve services.

[Created4]

There are religions-- both theism and atheism, for example--which do not involve services.

Precisely. One can practice a religion without walking into a church building.

What is protected under the 1st Amendment is:

the right of the people peaceably to assemble

And that is for ALL people, not just religious people.

But Trump/Pence now seem to want to restrict another part of the First Amendment:

to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Exclusive — Mike Pence: Phase Four Coronavirus Bill Should Have ‘Legal Shield’ from Trial Lawyers, Payroll Tax Cut, Economic Boosters

As Breitbart News reported this week, trial lawyers are chomping at the bit to unleash a wave of lawsuits on the country—and Pence told Breitbart News that such “liability protection” from those trial lawyers is also important for the reopening of the country. Pence said the government will aim to provide a “legal shield” to prevent frivolous lawsuits that could stall reopening measures.

“So we’re looking at all those things—and liability protection. What we want to do is make it possible if businesses or professional sports reopen and begin to operate consistent with CDC guidelines that they can do that with confidence and that they will have liability protection,” Pence said. “What we don’t want, in the midst of a recovering economy, we don’t want it to be saddled down with thousands of frivolous lawsuits filed all over the country. We want to give people a safe harbor where they do like businesses here in Georgia are doing and that is implement the CDC guidance for safe and healthy practices in operating their restaurants or operating their sporting events, that they can do so with confidence, and they can have that legal shield and umbrella while we bring this country all the way back.”

Who gets to decide what is a "frivolous lawsuit"? Apparently, according to Pence, the CDC (aka Big Pharma).

If this was already in place, I doubt the church's lawsuit would have even reached the 9th Circuit, let alone make it to the Supreme Court where the Trump Cultist's believe they will overturn it.

[Pauls' Revere]

There is plenty of religious discrimination here. Thus discriminates against everyone whose religion involves gathering together in fellowship.

I would agree just based on our 1st amendment alone to practice the religion of your choosing regardless of a contagion.

[Ender]

Where's the religious discrimination? How is it different from schools and other non-religious gatherings that were also banned?

My POV is that the lockdown breaks the 1st Amendment:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

[Created4]

My POV is that the lockdown breaks the 1st Amendment:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

But how did they do that? They locked down all businesses. They prevented gatherings in all places, not just religious. If they only closed down churches but no other businesses, then you might have a case.

But the First Amendment text on "right of the people peaceably to assemble" is not restricted to churches, but applies to any assemblies.

This is why cases are often lost at this level. It is not that the actions were wrong, but you have to litigate according to the law. The lockdowns were unconstitutional period. Not just unconstitutional for churches based on religious discrimination.

And as I wrote previously, what they shut down were businesses. The true church can never be shut down, because you cannot shut down the Kingdom of God.

Another COVID Small Business Casualty: The American Christian Church

[fedupinmo]

But how did they do that? They locked down all businesses. They prevented gatherings in all places, not just religious. If they only closed down churches but no other businesses, then you might have a case.

But the First Amendment text on "right of the people peaceably to assemble" is not restricted to churches, but applies to any assemblies.

This is why cases are often lost at this level. It is not that the actions were wrong, but you have to litigate according to the law. The lockdowns were unconstitutional period. Not just unconstitutional for churches based on religious discrimination.

And as I wrote previously, what they shut down were businesses. The true church can never be shut down, because you cannot shut down the Kingdom of God.

Another COVID Small Business Casualty: The American Christian Church

The 1st Amendment has no clause referring to "all businesses", does it? It specifically mentions Free Exercise of Religion and Peaceable Assembly as PROTECTED.
You are looking at this ass backwards. Business is not protected, practicing religion IS. Locking down businesses DOES NOT excuse preventing either practice of religon or peaceable assembly.

[Created4]

The 1st Amendment has no clause referring to "all businesses", does it? It specifically mentions Free Exercise of Religion and Peaceable Assembly as PROTECTED.
You are looking at this ass backwards. Business is not protected, practicing religion IS. Locking down businesses DOES NOT excuse preventing either practice of religon or peaceable assembly.

Ok, this is not hard to understand, and you are misrepresenting what I wrote.

Here is the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Can we agree this entire Amendment does NOT deal strictly with religion? Only the first phrase deals with RELIGION:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Did the lockdowns "establish a religion"? No.

Did the lockdowns "prohibit the free exercise thereof"? This is what was obviously debated.

Did the lockdowns violate "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"? Yes, but it did it across the board for ALL BUSINESSES, not just religious ones.

So you would have to argue, as they apparently did and lost, that the religious businesses were discriminated against because they were religious, and that therefore, this "prohibited the free exercise thereof."

You could only really make that argument if only religious businesses were shut down, which was not the case.

Other states are winning solely on "the right of the people peaceably to assemble," which includes churches and religious gatherings, but also all other gatherings, such as bars, restaurants, schools, etc.

So no, I do not have it "ass backwards," but those who feel religious businesses have some special privilege that other businesses do not have, are the ones who have it "ass backwards," because the Constitution does not grant that.

I, and I am sure many others, can practice my "religion" just fine without church businesses.

It was wrong to shut down businesses and prevent gatherings, period. NOT just churches.

[Pauls' Revere]

Judges are the best reason to re-elect Trump.

Judges rule the land under the current system.

Imagine if they were elected instead of appointed.

[JJ2]

Ok, this is not hard to understand, and you are misrepresenting what I wrote.

Here is the First Amendment:



Can we agree this entire Amendment does NOT deal strictly with religion? Only the first phrase deals with RELIGION:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Did the lockdowns "establish a religion"? No.

Did the lockdowns "prohibit the free exercise thereof"? This is what was obviously debated.

Did the lockdowns violate "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"? Yes, but it did it across the board for ALL BUSINESSES, not just religious ones.

So you would have to argue, as they apparently did and lost, that the religious businesses were discriminated against because they were religious, and that therefore, this "prohibited the free exercise thereof."

You could only really make that argument if only religious businesses were shut down, which was not the case.

Other states are winning solely on "the right of the people peaceably to assemble," which includes churches and religious gatherings, but also all other gatherings, such as bars, restaurants, schools, etc.

So no, I do not have it "ass backwards," but those who feel religious businesses have some special privilege that other businesses do not have, are the ones who have it "ass backwards," because the Constitution does not grant that.

I, and I am sure many others, can practice my "religion" just fine without church businesses.

It was wrong to shut down businesses and prevent gatherings, period. NOT just churches.

I get what you're saying, but they are still prohibiting the free exercise of religions. There is nothing in there that says it has to be in a discriminatory way. There is no exception for pandemics. There is no exception that says, "unless you ban other gatherings as well." It simply says you can't prohibit it. No exceptions.

But yes, banning both secular and religious gatherings is prohibited by the other part of the amendment.

[Created4]

but they are still prohibiting the free exercise of religions.

Saying it doesn't make it true. You have to prove it, and nobody here (or apparently in the 9th circuit) has proven that. Practice of religion does not depend upon a church business.

None of the businesses should have been shut down, and if you look at carefully what you are proposing, you are actually proposing a special status for church businesses.

And that kind of position should not be defended on a libertarian forum, because rights are only recognized to the individual, not a class. My right to practice my religion is not dependent on a church business. My right to assemble wherever I want is violated, but not because it is a religious right. It is violated wherever I want to assemble.

[Swordsmyth]

Imagine if they were elected instead of appointed.

That doesn't seem to work much better in the states where they are.

[KEEF]

It was litigated wrong, in my opinion. The lockdowns are Unconstitutional period, and there is no definable religious prejudice here, as it is applied to all "non-essential" businesses and churches are not singled out on the basis of their religious beliefs.

This is the key in the ruling:



THAT'S what need to be challenged and ligated. It needs to be shown that this no worse than a serious flu bug, and these measures were not warranted across the board for everyone in the population (maybe just nursing homes and elderly care.)

There is no religious discrimination here, so the ruling is basically correct based on this erroneous assumption, which apparently was never challenged.

Agree. Someone needs to litigate based on the validity and poor STATS of the science that governments keep using to justify moving their goal post with.

[Pauls' Revere]

That doesn't seem to work much better in the states where they are.

Yeah, idk. Just seems there must be a better way other than political appointment. Perhaps a nation wide SAT test for Judges? lol

[Created4]

Yeah, idk. Just seems there must be a better way other than political appointment. Perhaps a nation wide SAT test for Judges? lol

The only real way to reform the judicial system is to develop some kind of oversight body that is comprised of NON-Bar members, because corruption is the norm in the judiciary, not the exception, and judges are simply lawyers from the Bar associations that have been promoted.

So it is highly political and partisanship is rampant. Most states do have some kind of judicial oversight group, but they are comprised mostly of insiders and have little to no effect.

Civics needs to be taught to the populace as well, and how to form citizen Grand Juries to indict corrupt judges.

[fedupinmo]

Saying it doesn't make it true. You have to prove it, and nobody here (or apparently in the 9th circuit) has proven that. Practice of religion does not depend upon a church business.

None of the businesses should have been shut down, and if you look at carefully what you are proposing, you are actually proposing a special status for church businesses.

And that kind of position should not be defended on a libertarian forum, because rights are only recognized to the individual, not a class. My right to practice my religion is not dependent on a church business. My right to assemble wherever I want is violated, but not because it is a religious right. It is violated wherever I want to assemble.

Church HAS that special status, due to the prohibition of restricting the practice of religion.

For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.

24And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, 25not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.

Peaceable assembly ALSO has that status, as a SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED RIGHT.

Shopping doesn't seem to be listed there... and NO ONE SAYS THE FIRST IS ALL ABOUT RELIGION. But it does mention that the practice thereof is not to be restricted.