ROBERTS AND THE SUPREMES PASS ON HEARING A CONSTITUTIONAL CASE

ROBERTS AND THE SUPREMES PASS ON HEARING A CONSTITUTIONAL CASE

V.T. shared this article, and I include it in this week's blogs, because after reading it I cannot help but think that the USSA has finally, irrevocably, crossed a Rubicon, and that the blowback from it may or may not be a long time coming, but it will come, nevertheless. Here's the story:

US Supreme Court won’t intervene as Nevada limits church services but casinos can host thousands

On Friday, the United States Supreme Court declined to intervene on behalf of a Nevada church challenging the state’s ban on religious gatherings of more than 50 people while casinos are allowed to fill with thousands as long as they are at 50 percent capacity.

In the case of Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley vs. Sisolak, legal representatives for Calvary Chapel, an evangelical church, argued that the state of Nevada is unlawfully discriminating against houses of worship by allowing a number of public facilities to fill with crowds to 50 percent capacity while restricting religious gatherings to 50 people, no matter how large the building. Calvary Chapel wishes to offer services to gatherings of up to 90 people, representing 50 percent capacity.

The state of Nevada argued, however, that it could lawfully discriminate against places of worship for public health and economic reasons. 

The majority of the Supreme Court judges, 5 against 4, rejected Calvary Chapel’s application. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas dissented, saying the high court should have heard the case.  

In his dissent, Justice Alito contrasted Nevada’s treatment of churches with its preference for the state’s casinos, noting that even at 50 percent capacity some Las Vegas casinos are hosting thousands of patrons.

The judge also pointed out that the American Constitution guarantees “free exercise of religion,” not gambling. (Emphasis added)

I don't even know where to begin on this one. Supposedly, the US Supreme Court was supposed to exist as a check on unconstitutional actions, no matter by whom or what jurisdiction. And as the article points out, the State of Nevada has asserted a new power: the power to regulate or "lawfully discriminate against places of worship for public health and economic reasons." I have to wonder, in a time when the big cities in the country are melting down under a barrage of rioting and looting and "doxxing", if indeed the most essential services might just include those spiritual disciplines that churches (used to) provide. But no, according to Nevada and other states, the ideals of repentance, charity, love of neighbors, and respect for their persons and property (that old "thou shalt not covet" thing) are passe; they're non-essential. But gambling, is essential.

In short, it looks like Chief (In)justice Roberts and his friends on the left in the Court have decided that they need not decide on something that is clearly a constitutional issue. By deciding not to decide, they have in effect rendered a decision, opening the door for more local and state trampling of the constitution and the rights it supposedly  guarantees. Of course, regular readers here already know my thoughts. The Bill of Rights was an addition, an addendum of "afterthoughts".  Apparently, the afterthoughts can be discarded if there are technocratic "reasons" to do so, like "public health" and "economic" ones, and that on the basis when there is as yet no clearly established science supporting "social distancing" or "mask wearing" or what have you.

I find it highly disturbing for another reason. Just today(Wednesday), as I write this blog, I heard a report on my local radio news that a state legislator has started a bill which has already received numerous signatures, making it illegal to impose local or state mandates on wearing nose feeder bags on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Supposing it would pass, and get challenged, and brought to the Supreme Court, and it again decides not to decide. What happens then? One could argue that this most recent non-decision would leave it in place. Or it could hear the case, and strike it down in the name of consistency with its non-decision decision. The non-decision decision could, of course, eventually come with a real decision, but in the meantime, the door is left wide open to states like Nevada and its assertion on the power to "lawfully discriminate" for "public health" and "economic" reasons, which, let it be noted, could be the "economic reasons" equally of Harrah's casinos, or Karl Marx.

There's an implication here that disturbs me profoundly, and that is the perception that this non-decision decision will inevitably create, namely, that every time people try to work within the system to overturn clearly draconian over-reach, they are thwarted. The lesson they will take away from this is that the system no longer is interested in having even the appearance of constitutionality; why should it? The rights enumerated in the first ten amendments are, after all, the Bill of Afterthoughts (the ordo theologiae is always a harsh mistress). The perception will be created that the system only works to protect the "rights of the left", of the technocrats, of the bureaucrats, of the political class, but no one else.  We've already seen some states prohibiting even home bible studies, and attempts in some places to regulate how communion is celebrated, and even prohibit its celebration at all. From this it will be but a short step to mandate that certain liturgical and/or biblical texts have to be either altered, or not used publicly at all, in the name of "the wider community". And then will come the step of requiring churches, synagogues, or mosques to allow "equal employment", and force changes to their doctrine of priesthood or episcopacy, rabbinate, or imamate.

I could, and want, to continue my rant, with some choice and harsh language about all this. But I won't, because there's a final implication lurking in between the lines of this article, and that is that once again, Chief (In)Justice Roberts has taken a cowardly way out, raising the question, once again, of just who has what on him in their control files...

See you on the flip side...

 

 

46 thoughts on “ROBERTS AND THE SUPREMES PASS ON HEARING A CONSTITUTIONAL CASE”

  1. Sounds and feels like the bear is being poked to rile up a fight and we are the bear.

    Looks like Newsome and perhaps DNC are funded by Rockchilds, Soros and all THROUGH CCP to do as CCP requires via ANTIFA and BLM.

    Shopped last couple weeks ago at Rural King (what a store). Encountered a free face exiting and asked the young lad for a sanity check. He laughed, said no worries, that it’s about 40% without mask but no one is arguing. We talked a bit. Turned out he cannot mask without committing class 4 felony. Got me laughing.

    Today we stopped at the same place. Encountered old bearded Marine farmer. Surprised to see a mask but asked him the same question. Figured I was taking my chances. What could be worse than doubting a Karen wearing Marine colors? He laughed took the mask off, said no problem and started in complaining about the ridiculousness of the idea. Told him yup, like using chainlink to stop mosquitoes. We talked a bit and came to the idea that these are all annoying deceits above our pay grade so we have no idea but they all have one thing in common: to make us fight each other. By age, by race, by fat/skinny, by smoke/non, by wealth, by anything.

    People seem to be getting on to this. Curious what other psyche attacks on us will come through next and what might carry a wollop. 5G dialed up past stun but not quite kill? maim? Either way, folks have got to get on to the idea that the economic attack is way past reversible. Becoming clearer that union based jobs are done. Schools are not coming back. There goes that union. USPS will privatize. So are cops. Any patterns visible yet?

    1. After Hurricane Hanna, I needed a large tarp 30′ X 40′ to cover a roof until supplies are available for repair. Since were available locally had to order from Amazon. Low and behold the quite large box, weighing over 25 lbs, was delivered on a special early morning run today by the USPS, not UPS. Normally USPS comes mid afternoon to my neighborhood and delivers packages at that time, especially small packages ordered from Amazon.

  2. You don’t even have to be religious (I’m not) to find the Court’s (in)action here absolutely outrageous. How much more blatant an interference with the constitutional right to free exercise of religion could there be? And what about the constitutional right to peaceably assemble? The right to equal protection of the laws?

    When the country’s constitution is so flagrantly and repeatedly ignored, I ask myself whether the U.S. still has a constitution at all and whether there’s any institution of American political or social life that isn’t approaching total meltdown. It feels like we’re reliving parts of 1775, 1861, and 1914 all at the same time.

    Agreed that Americans who are being prevented from peacefully exercising their religion should be in the streets protesting.

    1. The U.S. still has a Constitution but it is under assault. The group subverting all the nations of the world want their leadership to own everything including us. They dream of creating a technological dark age where only a few families own and control everything and can do as they please to anyone and anything they please openly and in everyone’s face. Right now they got to hide their nature and intent but the more power they get the safer they feel revealing who and what they really are and what they intend for us. They are gluttons and they want the whole world to know them, fear them, and feed them. Their secret victims are no longer enough to satisfy their growing hunger.

      1. Anything claiming to be God that feeds from fear and blood sacrifice is not the Creator but a Deceiver.

    2. Agreed too that you don’t have to be in the streets to “protest.” My heartfelt encouragement to all those who protest by continuing to worship together! (End of my rants.)

  3. Our live Mass Services have resumed here in WA state with appropriate required precautions but at least they have resumed. They will broadcast online for those that do not want to attend live. Holly communion and the show will go on….

  4. Why do these churches not “protest” by conducting “services” anyway? Fauci just “tried” to give full freedom to “protest” en masse. Let all of the congregations within an area get to gather and “protest”, “protest”, “protest” and “protest” until their “rights” are heard by doing what “churches” do. Just because SCOTUS’ rule not to render judgment doesn’t suspect the Constitution either. Fauci just gave them license. Let the “protest” contests begin!!! I’m all for turning the civil rights marches for religious freedom back on their heads. Let the “left” be exposed for their “draconian” actions, too. Who said this is not a game two can play?

    1. OC, I am reminded of the “Crazy Eddie” character in The Mote in God’s Eye by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle.
      https://everything2.com/title/Crazy+Eddie
      We know that something is wrong, and try to change it. However, the attempt to shift the situation often actually makes the situation worse. Or, Crazy Eddie behavior may occasionally crack-open new possibilities…

      1. Of course, goshawks, to some degree I was a bit hyperbolic in my comments–hence all the quotes. Wflgang gets my point, and I suspect RB does to some degree, too. All that is required of peoples of all faiths–Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Moslem, Jewish–to do is to worship. These are communities who are being denied their Constitutional right to practice their faith communally. When the government steps beyond their bounds with edits and the courts refuse to participate, that does not mean the offending government office is legally correct or the peoples whose rights have been opposed. Fauci opened the floodgate when he denied to condemn protests. A community has the legal right to exist and practice their community rituals, practices and customs as long as no serious crimes are committed (murder, extortion, robbery, etc.) to the exact same degree as their “protected anarchists”. These people are paying the taxes, working the jobs, performing public services and the like. By engaging in their cultural rituals, festivals and social events they are “protesting” against the tyranny. The road to freedom is to act free and be free without doing harm to others and being respectful to each other’s liberties. Against this there no further law will be required.

    2. Robert Barricklow

      At first “they” were televising some of those protest; albeit, in a frame that implied the church leaders were acting against “public” interests and health. Now, they’re just not being televised?
      The Ministry of Truth just doesn’t
      have religion in their sights. Technically “they” have religions in their crosshairs. Globally.
      Repeatedly firing away, at will.

      1. Of course the media will no longer report when communities of faith disregard these rules. To do so would be to invite a conversation they do not want to have. When Fauci failed to state publicly that protests were a perfect vehicle for spreading the virus, thus dodging the question using the same inane logic as the Supreme Court, the wheels came off the legal cart. The act of worship is now an act of protest. If the majority of faith communities would seize the moment a lot of this insanity would die a cold, painful death. Doesn’t anyone really understand this is the new civil rights issue of the day? Doesn’t anyone understand if Christianity is deposed all other faith claims will be also? Weren’t some of these ideas publicly endorsed by Martin Luther King? Or, am I grossly mistaken? Something tells me I’m not. I’m at the right age and was born in the right time and location to bear witness to many of the events that occurred at ground zero. Most of those who speak in his name never knew him nor understand what he was trying to do. They are too busy trying to profit personally from his legacy. Some of us are old enough to really understand what he was trying to say–but was unable to do so because of the interests who were trying to hijack those who were in agreement with him. This issue has so much power to unite people that they would drop the narrative very, very quickly. Open worship is check-mate to the divide and conquer strategy! Isn’t that the human thing to do? It’s a shame Germany and Russia didn’t do more of this–or both attempts at national socialism might have failed miserably. From my faith claims, this one thing I do know: love wins.

        1. OC: In the mid-70s, I was transiting the Deep South on business. I stopped at a Birmingham(?) gas station to fill-up. While that happened, I went around back to use the rest rooms. There was a Man, a Woman, and a Colored rest room. I felt like I had just been punched in the gut. It is one thing to see it on TV; it is another thing to have it in-your-face…

    3. Protest while conducting The Sacrament of the Eucharist….that’s what they must do…I know the Priests in my area area up in arms but let’s see what they actually do about it. There is a great website for Catholics but also uplifting for all called United States of Grace where they are at least talking about these issues.

      1. I doff my hat to you. You saw through the hyperbole to seize the conclusion–by engaging in worship you are protesting against tyranny and voting for love. Love of the sacred. Love of the divine. Love of those surrounding you. Love of the community. Love of life. Such rituals are not without spiritual effects and affects. That is why they must be done. Now that these actions are now defacto “illegal” the performance is now a “protest”. We don’t need to engage in them with any change in attitude, just a repentent and contrite heart. Even a prisoner facing a death sentence cannot be denied an audience with a priest or pastor before his sentence is executed. The only thing that the President should consider is use existing authority granted to him by this pandemic and declare that the Department of Justice can now stand to defend the consitutional rights of all peoples who are practicing their religious faith in a respectful and honorable manner. The consequences to him politically may be extreme, but I do think it would be the right thing to do. Sometimes the right thing is not the legal thing. I prefer the right thing–and worship is sacred among my kin–by blood and within my community.

  5. My “big picture” view of the war on Christianity involves the “controllers” attempting to dissolve social support structures (family, religion, community) to make the herd easier to manage.

    1. I also agree completely. They want no support structure to get between the individual and the all-powerful State.

  6. As we get closer to the election I think you’ll see the dems pull out the blackmail card on ole John Roberts and I think many know what that is. Keep abreast of the news in the days ahead. I think more abominable is the way the courts are treating Mike Flynn and, Trump, for whatever reason, will not grant a pardon and it has had an effect on his base. And don’t forget the sacred cow John “the bull” Durham.
    Its amazing how we are all programed with people like him and Heidrich Bob Muller who has been given a free pass for all of his transgressions through the years. Rant over.

    1. John Roberts was appointed (rammed-in) to the Supreme Court by Bush the Younger. It was both quite an elevation and quite sudden. And particularly to have him become the Chief Justice, right off the bat. So, I smelled a probable ‘rat’…

      If Roberts is ‘owned’, I suspect it is by the PTB (who are state-less, religion-less, and conscience-less). As such, it would be ‘logical’ to diminish religion while affirming the power of the almighty dollar…

  7. marcos toledo

    This is the chickens coming home to roost the Christians failed to defend the native people’s religious rights. So that Christianity has now outlived its usefulness to the PTB its neck is on the chopping block. One wonders who the PTB really worship and are willing to offer us up to appease their gods.

  8. Whenever the SCOTUS pulls one of these “we refuse to hear the case” stunts, it just affirms they’re refusing to do their job. These refusals should be few and seldom but that’s not what we’re seeing. And this one reaches into the “separation of church and state” argument.
    By refusing to hear it they did “We the People” a disservice.

  9. Apparently, the afterthoughts can be discarded if there are technocratic “reasons” to do so, like “public health” and “economic” ones, and that on the basis when there is as yet no clearly established science supporting “social distancing” or “mask wearing” or what have you.

    Is anybody aware of the fraudulous “Germ theory” from Pasteur and the “terrain theory” van Beschamps and Bernard? Au article in the NY post from 1993 has given this sufficient attention. This video will show you the text of the article only for your reading
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=DHKz6kV_bN4&feature=emb_logo

    When it is clear that virusses do not belong to the germs then to me there is no contagion.

  10. Robert Barricklow

    Supreme Denial[IMO] is synonymous w/the Supreme Court.
    Checks and balances have been literally monetized.
    No doubt one could hear casino patrons praying.

    1. Robert Barricklow

      I’m surprised they didn’t all join in; to do the Circus Maximus “police verso”, the turning of the thumb.
      After all, they are; if nothing else, Supreme Justice Clown$. Why they even speak the lingo.
      Too bad they forgo the make-up. Although w/o those outfits their wouldn’t be any justice to their act.

  11. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. ~Declaration of Indy …in the END ! …it always Always ALWAYS ….comes down ta a fight ! always folks …when IN history ! ….hasn’t IT?

  12. I do not want to be seen as defending this decision so please don’t vote me off the island, but here is some possible explanation.  The standard for the church requested  injunction is to show irreparable harm.  The State was able to show that the Church could have held more religious services thus having free exercise and therefore the government action harm was not irreparable and an injunction standard was not  met.   Perhaps it would have been a good opportunity to more strongly argue that a tenet of the religion needed the full congregation to invoke the divine presence and that not including everyone would harm the entire group – the fractionalizing is the harm.  The State perhaps made an implicit assumption that a congregation of 50 was a reasonable equivalent to a “Minyan.”  I do not understand the number 50 for the church and 50% capacity for the casino,  perhaps that is explained in the court records.

    so here is my rant and concern.  THE MAGIC PHRASE.  If we say oh, this decision was made for PUBLIC HEALTH, at that point our brain turns off and we accept the outcome.    If we say the decision was made for NATIONAL SECURITY then inquire no more.  It is sort of like the NEW NORMAL or THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED for climate issues.  It is narcotizing dysfunction.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcotizing_dysfunction  

    1. anakephalaiosis

      Matthew 18:20
      “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

      Less number does not affect the principle. Yet, an induced principle must be explained, to become common sense.

      Same procedure applies to the court itself, as a case must be publicly explained, before judgment.

      Congregation is light of Day[ᛞ] before Judgment[ᛟ].

    2. The church was petitioning the Court for an injunction, and I think you’re right. Also, the state’s counter-argument relied partly on Jacobson v. Massachusetts from 1905, which created a precedent for a state to enforce mandatory vaccination and has been used repeatedly to justify states’ overreach in response to any so-called public health crisis, and which will–I’ll betcha dollars to donuts–be used again over the coming months in the U.S.

      P.S. Don’t forget the mother of all magic phrases (my personal favorite and the media’s too): CONSPIRACY THEORY.

  13. Control file? Perhaps simply an opportunist destined to leave his mark on the history of his time. Amoral worldview.

  14. In my opinion, the Supreme Court has been ‘politicized’ for a long time. It was supposed to be the last-ditch neutral arbiter for the People. For decades, it has been seen as being cynically ‘packed’ for the Left or the Right, depending on who was in power. In my opinion, it currently answers to whatever the PTB (who are state-less, religion-less, and conscience-less) wants of them. The masks are off…

    1. Agreed and the DOJ has been severely compromised in its entirety for decades. The expanse and depth corruption in this country cannot occur without the complicity of the justice system.

        1. absolutely right- just research Jordan Maxwell and understand how we are all living under admiralty law-

          Larry in Germany

  15. anakephalaiosis

    1. Challenging the Law is – by default – a criminal position. But defining the Law is not.

    2. We define the Law, by its language of origin. That language is Old English.

    3. Cecil Rhodes scholarships have an imperial goal, in the Commonwealth.

    4. To control the lingua franca, access to the Old English corpus is vetted.

    5. Tolkien created his own language, and others can do so as well.

    6. A skilled programmer can make his own version of Linux operating system.

    7. The basic source code of language is – as one might guess – the Ryne-Stafas.

    8. Point is, to define the Law, by its own context, the language itself.

    9. In the process of doing so, Christianity will be refurbished, by Megalithic astronomy.

    10. Logic and reason is pedagogics, a down to earth explanation.

    https://www.doe.utoronto.ca

Comments are closed.