- This topic has 17 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 12 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
The 11/25/20 opinion, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, docket 20A87, opposes singling out religious organizations for more restrictive treatment than secular establishments.
This was effected by President Trump’s Supreme Court nominations.
Hodu Lashem Key Tov, Hashem send the refuah before the makkah, He replaced Ginzberg with Barret.
This is a refuah after the makka.(and after the refuah)
Brooklyn and Queens were already allowed full capacity.SCOTUS did NOT say that Cuomo cannot limit the amount of people attending religious services.
He definitely can when there is a pandemic.
He just needs to write the EO differently.A win nevertheless.
Cuomo was crying today at his news conference about how terrible the new conservative Supreme Court is.
we’ll tell this neveila serucha the same as Hamans friends were telling Haman. if you started falling you’re finished . all this bluster is just that. we have to nullify all the penalties he gave out illegally.
The problem Coumo had being one sided allowing others what he forbid the religious. If he would have forbidden it to everyone, no suit would have been possible.
Cuomo again pushed the envelope one step too far and did so with a legal and political tin ear. Even the majority SCOTUS decision acknowledged that in very limted cases, severe restrictions may be required as a last resort and the justices will defer to the public health experts. In this case however, the NYS restrictions were per se discriminatory in that they imposed different restrictions on similarly situated gatherings and failed to first consider less intrusive measures.
Cuomo can reenact the restrictions if he has one rule for all, rather than a liberal rule for what he likes, and a stricter rule for religious groups, and he has to enforce them equally instead of a policy the restrictions only apply to my enemies (i.e. us) and not my friends.
I have no idea how excited to get about this victory. For one, it simply informs the State how to write their rules differently to avoid the specific issues the Supreme Court addressed. Two, the restrictions addressed are no longer in place. And three, the majority decision seemingly leaves open the possibility that if the State can show that religious gatherings from a viral transmission standpoint are a greater issue then the restrictions may very well be proper (i.e. this has to go through the appeals court for the Supreme Court to give a ruling on the actual merits… This is just an injunction).
Cuomo lied. The restrictions in fact are still in place in some areas of Staten Island, Queens and upstate. They are now null and void thanks to SCOTUS. And Cuomo cannot now reimpose them elsewhere.
Cuomo doesn’t want to broaden the restrictions to include businesses since that’ll inhibit economic activity. So he targeted religious institutions. Now he cannot do so anymore.
In my personal, unasked for, and minority opinion: The frum community in NY could have just pretended for a few months that COVID-19 is a dangerous disease, insisted on mask wearing, socially distant shuls, Chasunas limited to less than 100 people and outside, etc.
Instead it was ignored, people died, and everyone was shocked when Cuomo and DeBlasio went nuclear.
@yserbius123, and that is why we have 3 branches of government to prevent people like “Cuomo and DeBlasio from going nuclear”, in this case the checks work, you want to be told how to live your live you can always move to Cuba, we have not reach there YET.
Cuomo’s spin on it was nothing more than political posturing. There is, unfortunately, no guarantee that NY will not return to the conditions which originally set these restrictions in motion. That they are currently relaxed is completely beside the point.
השם ישמרנו מכל נגע ומחלה
What is really scary is that four Supreme Court justices do not seem to know that there is a First Amendment to the Constitution. (Or that BLM / Antifa was allowed to gather with no restrictions)
this SCOTUS ruling will iy”h have a long term effect of religions freedom in the US for the years coming…..
just read the ruling saying that he can not discriminate against religious service in any case so he will have to shutdown most secular activities in order to do it with Synagogue’s, and he will most likely never do it
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.