A voice for the Tzibbur by the Tzibbur- overcoming challenges. We take no responsibility for comments posted you are solely responsible for any comments you make and their accuracy. We take no responsibility and assume no liability for any comments posted by you or any third-party.
"The application for injunctive relief presented to JUSTICE BREYER and by him referred to the Court is granted. Re- spondent is enjoined from enforcing Executive Order 202.68’s 10- and 25-person occupancy limits on applicant pending disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be de- nied, this order shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court."
Yes, but it is clear that the justices, including the Chief Justice, held that the order was not neutral toward religion. And in order to have an injunction, there has to be likelihood of success, and the per curium opinion said no to likelihood of success. The record indicated that people were complying with masks in houses of worship. I find that hard to believe but you get past the district court, the record is done. I do not think this will change much in the law. A governor can set restrictions on say, all places where people sit for long periods without moving around and include houses of worship. Religion had much more protection under the old standard before the Payote case in which the Payote Indians were not given any preference to smoke Peyote (magical mushrooms) as part of their religion. Before that, laws had to be narrowly tailored, in other words, an accommodation, reasonable, should be given to religion. Congress tried to correct that case with the RIFRA but that was ruled unconstitutional because Congress cannot overrule the Supreme Court as applied to the states (Congress can do whatever it wants in federal territories to add above the Constitution). So we are stuck with just the neutrality standard.
אזל גברא דמסתפינא מיניה If there is no legal option to force us to comply with any שמירת הגוף והנפש, we are truly stuck. So far, the only reaction to the pandemic has been from the law. Us Yidden, as much as we like to think we have our own racket going, have only been doing things with the law. We do not personally care about this pandemic. Aside from some tut-tutting when someone dies, we have this built-in refusal to change our lifestyle. Without the legal ability to force us to comply, we are stuck in hefkerus forever. If the imagery of a primitive tribe doesn't feel right, we need to change our behavior. And fast.
Misleading. They didn't strike down law, rather they issued a preliminary injunction. Case has not been heard.
ReplyDeleteNo it is not just an injuction in the traditional sense. An injuction bars a party from taking action until the case is fully heard.
DeleteThat is not what the Supreme Court did. It issued a ruling but allowed for the Governors office to respond by Monday.
This was a ruling with decisions written by both the majority and minority opinions of the court
No, it's an injunction.
Delete"The application for injunctive relief presented to JUSTICE BREYER and by him referred to the Court is granted. Re- spondent is enjoined from enforcing Executive Order 202.68’s 10- and 25-person occupancy limits on applicant pending disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be de- nied, this order shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court."
Yes, but it is clear that the justices, including the Chief Justice, held that the order was not neutral toward religion. And in order to have an injunction, there has to be likelihood of success, and the per curium opinion said no to likelihood of success. The record indicated that people were complying with masks in houses of worship. I find that hard to believe but you get past the district court, the record is done. I do not think this will change much in the law. A governor can set restrictions on say, all places where people sit for long periods without moving around and include houses of worship. Religion had much more protection under the old standard before the Payote case in which the Payote Indians were not given any preference to smoke Peyote (magical mushrooms) as part of their religion. Before that, laws had to be narrowly tailored, in other words, an accommodation, reasonable, should be given to religion. Congress tried to correct that case with the RIFRA but that was ruled unconstitutional because Congress cannot overrule the Supreme Court as applied to the states (Congress can do whatever it wants in federal territories to add above the Constitution). So we are stuck with just the neutrality standard.
ReplyDeleteאזל גברא דמסתפינא מיניה
ReplyDeleteIf there is no legal option to force us to comply with any שמירת הגוף והנפש, we are truly stuck.
So far, the only reaction to the pandemic has been from the law. Us Yidden, as much as we like to think we have our own racket going, have only been doing things with the law. We do not personally care about this pandemic. Aside from some tut-tutting when someone dies, we have this built-in refusal to change our lifestyle. Without the legal ability to force us to comply, we are stuck in hefkerus forever.
If the imagery of a primitive tribe doesn't feel right, we need to change our behavior. And fast.
+1
Delete