4 ms·
Although I happen to agree that, in this case, the order respects the freedom of religion; I also appreciate the dissent. I'd be disturbed if there was no hint
by jeffdavis 6y ago
Although I happen to agree that, in this case, the order respects the freedom of religion; I also appreciate the dissent.
I'd be disturbed if there was no hint of dissent when something pretty clearly goes against the text of the Constitution. We should all have a bit of hesitation as this unprecedented stuff is happening, and make sure it's not permanent. Let's remember that this is all not normal, so hopefully we can somewhat get back to normal with our rights intact.
- bradleyjg 6y ago> when something pretty clearly goes against the text of the Constitution Did Congress make a respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof? These rules may ultimately be ruled unconstitutional but there’s nothing pretty clear about the incorporation doctrine.
- jeffdavis 6y agoA fair point. But a similar argument could be made about speech and the press. It's at least a little scary.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> I'd be disturbed if there was no hint of dissent when something pretty clearly goes against the text of the Constitution. Incorporation isn't clearly in the text of th Constitution, and this is State not Federal action. Even if incorporation were clear in the text, it's not at all clear that failing to exempt religious gatherings from a broader general prohibition would be clearly against the text. It's true that even incidental impacts to important rights from facially-neutral acts are given strict scrutiny under case law, but that application is itself not an unambiguous application of the text and it's far from clear that this would conflict with that precedent.