Justice Roberts Trashes 1st Amendment: Supreme Court Rejects Nevada Church’s Challenge to Shutdown Restrictions

Turncoat Roberts is a nightmare. This is afrist amendment right – plain and simple. You can gamble but you can’t go to chruch. You can burn down cities but you can’t go to church?

Justice Roberts Trounces On 1st Amendment! Supreme Court Rejects Nevada Church’s Challenge to Shutdown Restrictions

By Eric Thompson, July 25, 2020:

The Judicial Branch’s responsibilities are to ensure that laws passed and enforced are Constitutional, that evildoers are punished and all American citizens have equal rights, but not elevated or new ones.

As progressives have chipped away at the supremacy of the current language in these documents, and because of the dominance of Marxist leaning educators influencing our youth, a growing number of Americans now believe the US Constitution is outdated and as a living document, must be re-interpreted to accommodate our twenty-first century’s “new norms”.

Our nation’s founders, especially the anti-Federalists, feared the growth of the federal government, who had the power to strip away personal liberties. After reviewing the language of the newly signed Constitution, this group demanded amendments to it, enshrining the rights they wanted to ensure could not be taken away by future generations.

In spite of all their efforts, including adding the 10 Bill Of Rights, narcissistic judges have in effect modified the Constitution by allowing laws that violate some of its tenants to stand.

The author and signers of the Bill Of Rights listed, what I believe they saw as the preeminent core freedoms they wanted to be protected, in 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.”

The Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote, again proved my point that our ideological divisions in America have infiltrated the Judicial Branch too. Chief Justice John Roberts ruled with the 4 progressives on the court, who have expressed the need to update the Constitution as a living document, to squash the First Amendment again. Justice Roberts’s progressive view, which allows the rejections of the implied requirement of religious protections, wrote in reply to a similar CA case – State officials must have the flexibility to make judgments about public health.

From NY Times

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request from a church in Nevada to block enforcement of state restrictions on attendance at religious services.

The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s four more liberal members to form a majority.

The court’s brief order was unsigned and gave no reasons, which is typical when the justices act on emergency applications. The court’s four more conservative members filed three dissents, totaling 24 pages.

Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley in Dayton, Nev., argued that the state treated houses of worship less favorably than it did casinos, restaurants and amusement parks. Those businesses have been limited to 50 percent of their fire-code capacities, while houses of worship have been subject to a flat 50-person limit.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., in a dissent joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett M. Kavanaugh, wrote that the distinction made no sense.

“The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion,” he wrote. “It says nothing about the freedom to play craps or blackjack, to feed tokens into a slot machine or to engage in any other game of chance. But the governor of Nevada apparently has different priorities.”

“A public health emergency does not give governors and other public officials carte blanche to disregard the Constitution for as long as the medical problem persists,” Justice Alito wrote.

“That Nevada would discriminate in favor of the powerful gaming industry and its employees may not come as a surprise,” he wrote, “but this court’s willingness to allow such discrimination is disappointing.”

Read more at Geller Report

We are ad-free!

support

Share this: