Read on Twitter
Scientifically, there should be a single consistent standard.
As long as that is true, it's fine.
Cuomo's standard was neither consistent nor scientific. That is a clear first amendment violation. https://twitter.com/gregggonsalves/status/1331962935011405825
As long as that is true, it's fine.
Cuomo's standard was neither consistent nor scientific. That is a clear first amendment violation. https://twitter.com/gregggonsalves/status/1331962935011405825
Gorsuch is SCIENTIFICALLY RIGHT HERE.
If people can't admit that, then they are allowing their biases to show. https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1331972979077517312?s=19
If people can't admit that, then they are allowing their biases to show. https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1331972979077517312?s=19
This on the other hand is 100% BS.
Not a single scientist I know supports this double standard. The best ones know that the type ofvenue is irrelevant... Only the size and # of people matter. https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1331973153569058816?s=19
Not a single scientist I know supports this double standard. The best ones know that the type ofvenue is irrelevant... Only the size and # of people matter. https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1331973153569058816?s=19
In short, it is the LEFT here using religious bias to promote an antiscientific standard and allowing the State to violate Rights.
The Liberals and CJJR should be ashamed.
The Liberals and CJJR should be ashamed.
Another good thread here.
A consistent standard would have passed constitutional muster. https://twitter.com/JohnInazu/status/1331941472149655554
A consistent standard would have passed constitutional muster. https://twitter.com/JohnInazu/status/1331941472149655554
And, always read @JoshMBlackman... https://reason.com/volokh/2020/11/26/roman-catholic-diocese-part-i-the-end-of-the-south-bay-superprecedent/
"Robert's South Bay concurrence is no longer a super-precedent...courts had cited it 114 times in the past six months. But Diocese will likely be the last citation. Courts can no longer look to the Chief's opinion as the definitive statement for pandemic cases."
"I don't think the majority formally repudiates South Bay. Indeed, the Court distinguishes NY's orders from CA order. But going forward, Diocese will be controlling standard. And, when a COVID case reaches the Court on certiorari, I suspect the Chief will join the conservatives."
And God Bless Gorsuch for this. This is something worth giving thanks for.
And more from Gorsuch here: https://reason.com/volokh/2020/11/26/roman-catholic-diocese-part-ii-told-you-so-about-jacobson-v-massachusetts/
". . . the State has effectively sought to ban all traditional forms of worship in affected "zones" whenever the Governor decrees and for as long as he chooses. Nothing in Jacobson purported to address, let alone approve, such serious and long-lasting intrusions..."
The arguments between Gorsuch and Roberts are fascinating here. I think ultimately, Roberts will have to concede the point to Gorsuch (who has the majority on his side now), but a fascinating insight into the Court, nonetheless.
