5 ms·

Whether there is a pandemic or not isn't given great weight by either side. Both sides implicitly agree that California isn't allowed to go out of its way to pe

by Meekro 6y ago

Whether there is a pandemic or not isn't given great weight by either side. Both sides implicitly agree that California isn't allowed to go out of its way to penalize churches, but they disagree on whether it has done that. Robert's order says that "similar or more severe restrictions apply to lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances." He concludes that California is not singling out churches. Kavanaugh's dissent notes that churches are being treated worse than "factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries."

bradleyjg 6y ago
You don’t need much in the way of reasoning, or any really, to deny an emergency stay order. The presumption is and should be very much against.
- kmonsen 6y ago
  That is another good observation that was hard to understand at first to someone very familiar with law (like myself). It would be a very strong action for the supreme court to take action here. The dissent doesn't really say why it would be irreparable damage to keep churches closed a little bit longer.
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  Sure, but neither side is presuming that emergency orders are (un)constitutional. Both opinions do ultimately agree that emergency orders are, in general, constitutional during a pandemic. And not by presumption, but by an examination of the laws and facts. That is why neither position makes this a central question: not because it's presumed, but because they both ultimately agree it's not a point of contention. The point of contention is whether this particular order's treatment of churches is constitutional. Not whether the orders in general are constitutional. Once both sides agree that the orders are in general constitutional, the argument that churches should be allowed to stay open while some other similar things stay closed now does require an argument.
  - zuminator 6y ago
    There seems to be some very mild confusion here. An "emergency stay order" doesn't refer to an order to stay home during an emergency. It's a request to the court to ask for the enforcement of the law to be temporarily halted (stayed) for the reason that it will cause immediate or irreparable harm to the moving party (it will injure the religious establishments). There's no question that such requests are generally Constitutional.
cma 6y ago
> cannabis dispensaries I’ve never seen a cannabis dispensary where masses of people crowd together and sing spittle into each other’s faces. Surely when looking at same treatment, you have to consider the differences in exposure. Plus church can feasibly be done remotely, where cannabis dispensing involves some physical transfer (could be mandated to be delivery though, and no singing and reduced capacity could be mandated for church gatherings).
- Lammy 6y ago
  There are (or 'were', at the moment) plenty of dispensaries with smoking rooms in the back full of people exhaling their droplets.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - kmonsen 6y ago
    The were part is the key here, currently churches have more opportunity to be open (at least in bay area), so that part does not make sense.
    - Lammy 6y ago
      If one type of church can be open then why not the other? I acknowledge the risk and wouldn't attend either, but the double standard seems apparent to me.
      - cma 6y ago
        It isn’t about anyone’s individual risk, but the risk to the entire community, including nonmembers.
        Lammy 6y ago
        I think the isolation is a risk to the community too. We have to allow people some social contact. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/05/26/americans-with-depression-anxiety-pandemic/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/05/26/americans-w...

by Meekro 6y ago

bradleyjg 6y ago

You don’t need much in the way of reasoning, or any really, to deny an emergency stay order. The presumption is and should be very much against.

kmonsen 6y ago
That is another good observation that was hard to understand at first to someone very familiar with law (like myself). It would be a very strong action for the supreme court to take action here. The dissent doesn't really say why it would be irreparable damage to keep churches closed a little bit longer.
throwawaygh 6y ago
Sure, but neither side is presuming that emergency orders are (un)constitutional. Both opinions do ultimately agree that emergency orders are, in general, constitutional during a pandemic. And not by presumption, but by an examination of the laws and facts. That is why neither position makes this a central question: not because it's presumed, but because they both ultimately agree it's not a point of contention. The point of contention is whether this particular order's treatment of churches is constitutional. Not whether the orders in general are constitutional. Once both sides agree that the orders are in general constitutional, the argument that churches should be allowed to stay open while some other similar things stay closed now does require an argument.
- zuminator 6y ago
  There seems to be some very mild confusion here. An "emergency stay order" doesn't refer to an order to stay home during an emergency. It's a request to the court to ask for the enforcement of the law to be temporarily halted (stayed) for the reason that it will cause immediate or irreparable harm to the moving party (it will injure the religious establishments). There's no question that such requests are generally Constitutional.

cma 6y ago

> cannabis dispensaries I’ve never seen a cannabis dispensary where masses of people crowd together and sing spittle into each other’s faces. Surely when looking at same treatment, you have to consider the differences in exposure. Plus church can feasibly be done remotely, where cannabis dispensing involves some physical transfer (could be mandated to be delivery though, and no singing and reduced capacity could be mandated for church gatherings).

Lammy 6y ago
There are (or 'were', at the moment) plenty of dispensaries with smoking rooms in the back full of people exhaling their droplets.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- kmonsen 6y ago
  The were part is the key here, currently churches have more opportunity to be open (at least in bay area), so that part does not make sense.
  - Lammy 6y ago
    If one type of church can be open then why not the other? I acknowledge the risk and wouldn't attend either, but the double standard seems apparent to me.
    - cma 6y ago
      It isn’t about anyone’s individual risk, but the risk to the entire community, including nonmembers.
      - Lammy 6y ago
        I think the isolation is a risk to the community too. We have to allow people some social contact. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/05/26/americans-with-depression-anxiety-pandemic/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/05/26/americans-w...