Catholic diocese and Orthodox Jewish synagogues ask Supreme Court to block New York's Covid limits

[snakestretcher]

So, you believe that politicians may limit constitutionally guaranteed freedoms (which have been fought and died for) if they believe it is in the national interest? What limiting factor would you place on this power, Can government make you exercise to stay fit? Can they impose all these draconian restrictions every flu season to save 20-50 thousand lives a year? I will repeat again, people have fought and died to guarantee these freedoms, so the principle that our liberties are, in principle, worth dying for is firmly established in our history.

Fine, whine about freedom and die of stupidity. Not my problem.

 

[snakestretcher]

The flu kills 30-60 thousand a year, most of whom could have been saved by the same draconian measures imposed for COVID. What principle do you adhere to that makes you ok with those deaths, but not COVID deaths? Exactly what number between 60k and 250k is the magic number when you start giving a damn about human life, and why that number?

There's a vaccine for seasonal flu. If people won't take advantage of it whose fault is that? Oh, and quit inventing absurd strawmen.

 

[snakestretcher]

But the designation of
"essential service" is in and of itself completely arbitrary, and various politicians have proven this in their designations. Religious groups are not asking for "special treatment", only equal treatment with other services as is guaranteed by the free exercise clause, and for many religions, their services are deemed to be "essential".

Good, so do that essential praying at home. You don't need a church to do it in-after all god is everywhere, right?

 

[HonestJoe]

Ask yourself whether the right of murdering people falls within those guaranteed within the Constitution.

If you call it "religious practice" it does, which is the point. If you consider the First Amendment unconditional, literally anything could be deemed a right if it is defined as "religious practice".

That isn't how it actually works (or ever has), which why lots of things considered religious practice in some or other faith are legitimately either restricted or prohibited (e.g. polygamy, circumcision, carrying blades, outdoor cremations).

 

[dave8383]

................. What limiting factor would you place on this power, Can government make you exercise to stay fit? Can they impose all these draconian restrictions every flu season to save 20-50 thousand lives a year?..........

Obviously they can't mandate critical thinking.

 

[Marcus1124]

That’s true, I don’t support any and every conceivable measure to save even a single human life from death by a virus. I support more aggressive responses to more aggressive and destructive viruses, and less aggressive responses to less aggressive and destructive viruses. Covid is many many times more aggressive and destructive of human life then the flu.

Because other causes of death aren’t causing a global pandemic that threatens to overrun our hospitals and result in the need to deprive Carradine people because we have run out of resources to help them. Covid is doing that.

Your line of questioning appears to reveal that you don’t know or acknowledge what a pandemic is, or what makes a pandemic different from other things that are not pandemics.

So what is your limiting principle, what determines what precise measures are reasonable for what circumstances? What are the objective principles upon which you assess the sliding scale of reasonable response?

I do acknowledge what a pandemic is, a tragedy, but it is not and would not be an existential threat to human civilization, even if we didn't know that (and honestly, we really did) in the first month or so, we damn well knew it pretty quickly, that if left unchecked it would have a fatality rate of less than 2.5 percent, not that out of line with previous pandemics where we did not create massive economic disasters and spend the inflation adjusted equivalent of trillions of dollars, and incalculable human suffering. What my line of questioning reveals is that I apply the same standards of rationality to this as I do all other matters of public policy.

In the past, mitigation efforts have focused (far more legitimately) on quarantine of infected people who demonstrably pose risks to others, this one could have been handled similarly, with some additional efforts targeted at those demographics proven to be the most at risk (just the opposite of what Cuomo did) are you aware that of those who have died, nearly a third have been exposed in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities? For far less than trillions in direct economic costs, and well over 10 trillion in indirect costs, we could have focused our efforts on the truly at risk.

Even now, the "science" tells us that schools should be open, and that is just based on reasonable assessments of the immediate risks posed by opening them. It does not even begin to take into account the long-term damage being done to an entire generation with basically losing a year of education during their formative years. And this because we have idiot politicians salivating over the power and attention they have managed to seize in this time of crisis, either ignorantly or cynically making declarations about how nothing is too much to save even a single human life, and thus conditioning people to accept such a ludicrous and utterly irresponsible standard for setting public policy.

There is NOTHING stopping people who are overly concerned (or even those who are reasonably concerned due to their age or other underlying conditions) from self-quarantining, freedom is kinda fantasitic that way. My Aunt has essentially refused to leave her apartment, or allow anyone to visit, she ventures out once every couple of weeks with two masks on, and rubber gloves to go grocery shopping in the early morning when the stores are less crowded. That is her right, and that very fact and freedom in my views means the government's legitimate responsibility is not to force people to behave in a manner that they think will save lives, but to inform people of the risk, and let people in a free society decide for themselves. Unfortunately, too many people do not think very rationally, for example, I have a friend from high school who suffers from MS, she supports the lockdowns so she is not "forced to go into work and be exposed", I pointed out to her that nobody can force her to go to work, she has the absolute right to refuse. She responded that she would get fired and that is not "fair". Well guess what, her place of employment has closed permanently due to the restrictions she supports, so not only has she lost her job anyway, but so has everyone else who was not free to make choices for themselves. In her view, maximizing misery is more fare than minimizing it so long as everyone else is suffering as much as she is. And that is what happens when people place so much power in the hands fo the state and allow it to rampantly limit human freedom.

And before you make any argument about people dying for others convenience and liberty, just remember the only reason you have the luxury of liberty is because many have chosen to fight and die for it.

 

[dave8383]

So what is your limiting principle, what determines what precise measures are reasonable for what circumstances? What are the objective principles upon which you assess the sliding scale of reasonable response?

I do acknowledge what a pandemic is, a tragedy, but it is not and would not be an existential threat to human civilization, even if we didn't know that (and honestly, we really did) in the first month or so, we damn well knew it pretty quickly, that if left unchecked it would have a fatality rate of less than 2.5 percent, not that out of line with previous pandemics where we did not create massive economic disasters and spend the inflation adjusted equivalent of trillions of dollars, and incalculable human suffering. What my line of questioning reveals is that I apply the same standards of rationality to this as I do all other matters of public policy.

In the past, mitigation efforts have focused (far more legitimately) on quarantine of infected people who demonstrably pose risks to others, this one could have been handled similarly, with some additional efforts targeted at those demographics proven to be the most at risk (just the opposite of what Cuomo did) are you aware that of those who have died, nearly a third have been exposed in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities? For far less than trillions in direct economic costs, and well over 10 trillion in indirect costs, we could have focused our efforts on the truly at risk.

Even now, the "science" tells us that schools should be open, and that is just based on reasonable assessments of the immediate risks posed by opening them. It does not even begin to take into account the long-term damage being done to an entire generation with basically losing a year of education during their formative years. And this because we have idiot politicians salivating over the power and attention they have managed to seize in this time of crisis, either ignorantly or cynically making declarations about how nothing is too much to save even a single human life, and thus conditioning people to accept such a ludicrous and utterly irresponsible standard for setting public policy.

There is NOTHING stopping people who are overly concerned (or even those who are reasonably concerned due to their age or other underlying conditions) from self-quarantining, freedom is kinda fantasitic that way. My Aunt has essentially refused to leave her apartment, or allow anyone to visit, she ventures out once every couple of weeks with two masks on, and rubber gloves to go grocery shopping in the early morning when the stores are less crowded. That is her right, and that very fact and freedom in my views means the government's legitimate responsibility is not to force people to behave in a manner that they think will save lives, but to inform people of the risk, and let people in a free society decide for themselves. Unfortunately, too many people do not think very rationally, for example, I have a friend from high school who suffers from MS, she supports the lockdowns so she is not "forced to go into work and be exposed", I pointed out to her that nobody can force her to go to work, she has the absolute right to refuse. She responded that she would get fired and that is not "fair". Well guess what, her place of employment has closed permanently due to the restrictions she supports, so not only has she lost her job anyway, but so has everyone else who was not free to make choices for themselves. In her view, maximizing misery is more fare than minimizing it so long as everyone else is suffering as much as she is. And that is what happens when people place so much power in the hands fo the state and allow it to rampantly limit human freedom.

And before you make any argument about people dying for others convenience and liberty, just remember the only reason you have the luxury of liberty is because many have chosen to fight and die for it.

Alrighty than.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

If you call it "religious practice" it does, which is the point. If you consider the First Amendment unconditional, literally anything could be deemed a right if it is defined as "religious practice".

That isn't how it actually works (or ever has), which why lots of things considered religious practice in some or other faith are legitimately either restricted or prohibited (e.g. polygamy, circumcision, carrying blades, outdoor cremations).

And so is murder. However these Christians and Jews are doing nothing like that. They are 'assembling', as covered in the first amendment, and following their traditional religious practices, also covered in the first amendment. There will be no harmful incidents taking place because there will be no breaking of any legislated laws and nothing that would contradict their religious beliefs.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

Obviously they can't mandate critical thinking.

But they sure as hell try.

 

[dave8383]

But they sure as hell try.

They should mandate anything that will save lives during this pandemic. It's called "working together". It's no different than ordering an infantry unit to carry 250 rounds of ammo, or a certain number of grenades, per rifleman.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

They should mandate anything that will save lives during this pandemic. It's called "working together". It's no different than ordering an infantry unit to carry 250 rounds of ammo, or a certain number of grenades, per rifleman.

Obviously this 'working together' idea really isn't working.

Fifty different governors have 50 different policies so no one really knows what's going on. And the media is suppressing opinions that run contrary to their explanations for this virus or its cures.

 

[HonestJoe]

And so is murder. However these Christians and Jews are doing nothing like that.

You're still evading the key point. The question is a very simple one; Do you believe the constitutional right to religious practice is unconditional or do you believe that are some religious practices which can be legitimately regulated or prohibited?

If you argue for the former, you would be saying that murder could be permitted if it is called religious practice. If you argue for the latter, you can't dismiss the COIVD restrictions on religious practice out of hand, you have to determine the general criteria for legitimate regulation of religious practice and then explain why these specific restrictions don't meet that. It's worth noting that neither option is without difficulties and complication.

 

[dave8383]

Obviously this 'working together' idea really isn't working.

Of course it's not working. Just like an infantry company needs a CO, the US needs a real president. We haven't had one. But, we will in a few weeks.

 

[dcsports]

Obviously this 'working together' idea really isn't working.

Fifty different governors have 50 different policies so no one really knows what's going on. And the media is suppressing opinions that run contrary to their explanations for this virus or its cures.

Primary disaster response is up to the states. It should be 50 different programs, because there are differences between states and areas. There's also further implementation at the local level. For example, New York state has very different issues than New Mexico, so their responses aren't going to be exactly the same. There are further differences locally - containing the disease in Syracuse is going to look different than NYC. In many ways, we want these different approaches too - as they allow us to find out what works and fine tune the response.

I disagree that 'no one really knows what's going on'. Many of those states have a good grasp on their issues and response. It's just difficult to track these and match up programs 1:1 on a national level. We don't want a 'one size fits all' response either for the same reason - it's impossible to track local conditions and adjust response on a nationwide level.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

[

QUOTE="HonestJoe, post: 1073059439, member: 15915"]
You're still evading the key point. The question is a very simple one; Do you believe the constitutional right to religious practice is unconditional or do you believe that are some religious practices which can be legitimately regulated or prohibited?

Again, everyone has to follow the laws of the land as laid down by the Constitution. If it is illegal then the SCOTUS will rule against them, just as they have done in numerous cases.

If you argue for the former, you would be saying that murder could be permitted if it is called religious practice.

Killing people is not allowed under the law anywhere, in any religion, barring Islam.

If you argue for the latter, you can't dismiss the COIVD restrictions on religious practice out of hand, you have to determine the general criteria for legitimate regulation of religious practice and then explain why these specific restrictions don't meet that. It's worth noting that neither option is without difficulties and complication.

Nothing under Covid has been legislated. Murder has been.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

Primary disaster response is up to the states. It should be 50 different programs, because there are differences between states and areas. There's also further implementation at the local level. For example, New York state has very different issues than New Mexico, so their responses aren't going to be exactly the same. There are further differences locally - containing the disease in Syracuse is going to look different than NYC. In many ways, we want these different approaches too - as they allow us to find out what works and fine tune the response.

I disagree that 'no one really knows what's going on'. Many of those states have a good grasp on their issues and response. It's just difficult to track these and match up programs 1:1 on a national level. We don't want a 'one size fits all' response either for the same reason - it's impossible to track local conditions and adjust response on a nationwide level.

If they genuinely knew what was going on there'd be acts in place where the laws were uniform, but they're not.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

Alrighty than.

View attachment 67306488

The poster provided a very thoughtful response and all you have is a cartoon and "alrighty than". Do you really not yet understand why the left is held in such low intellectual esteem?

 

[dave8383]

The poster provided a very thoughtful response ....................

Come on. He put up the same thing we've been hearing for months.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

Come on. He put up the same thing we've been hearing for months.

And it's all true, right?

 

[Atomic Kid]

There is NOTHING stopping people who are overly concerned (or even those who are reasonably concerned due to their age or other underlying conditions) from self-quarantining, freedom is kinda fantasitic that way. My Aunt has essentially refused to leave her apartment, or allow anyone to visit, she ventures out once every couple of weeks with two masks on, and rubber gloves to go grocery shopping in the early morning when the stores are less crowded. That is her right, and that very fact and freedom in my views means the government's legitimate responsibility is not to force people to behave in a manner that they think will save lives, but to inform people of the risk, and let people in a free society decide for themselves. Unfortunately, too many people do not think very rationally, for example, I have a friend from high school who suffers from MS, she supports the lockdowns so she is not "forced to go into work and be exposed", I pointed out to her that nobody can force her to go to work, she has the absolute right to refuse. She responded that she would get fired and that is not "fair". Well guess what, her place of employment has closed permanently due to the restrictions she supports, so not only has she lost her job anyway, but so has everyone else who was not free to make choices for themselves. In her view, maximizing misery is more fare than minimizing it so long as everyone else is suffering as much as she is. And that is what happens when people place so much power in the hands fo the state and allow it to rampantly limit human freedom.

And before you make any argument about people dying for others convenience and liberty, just remember the only reason you have the luxury of liberty is because many have chosen to fight and die for it.

Not true. Trump invoked the National Defense Production Act. Not to produce more masks or respirators. But to force meatpacking plants to stay open. Even though they were among the major incubators for the super spreading during the early months of the Corona virus outbreak.

Trump Signs Executive Order Keeping Meat Plants Open During Outbreak

The executive order designates meat-processing plants as critical infrastructure that must maintain operations during the coronavirus pandemic.

www.newsweek.com

Meatpacking plants tied to more COVID-19 cases than known before, new business outbreak data shows

A business group sued to block the state from releasing updated data

www.jsonline.com

 

[dave8383]

And it's all true, right?

Well, it's certainly true that Trump ****ed it up, yes.

Come on people, practice mitigation.

LA County To Tighten Coronavirus Restrictions Further On Monday

Los Angeles County will ban most public and private gatherings next week as part of a stricter stay-at-home order, health officials announced Friday, Nov. 27, as the coronavirus case rate continued to climb.

The new order will go into effect Monday, Nov. 30.

Officials reported 24 more coronavirus-related deaths and 4,544 new cases in Los Angeles County on Friday. The five-day average of new cases is now 4,751.

There were also 1,893 LA County residents in hospitals with the coronavirus, 24% of whom were in intensive care. On Oct. 27, one month ago, there were 747 people in hospitals with the virus.

https://www.gazettes.com/news/coron...cle_19b65306-311d-11eb-8b42-cb0d901e0cb1.html

 

[MTAtech]

If you call it "religious practice" it does, which is the point. If you consider the First Amendment unconditional, literally anything could be deemed a right if it is defined as "religious practice".

That isn't how it actually works (or ever has), which why lots of things considered religious practice in some or other faith are legitimately either restricted or prohibited (e.g. polygamy, circumcision, carrying blades, outdoor cremations).

Correct, and the SCOTUS has previously ruled it is not unconditional.
Through the years, claimants have made the case that their religion calls for animal sacrifices or smoking peyote. Mostly, the court has ruled in favor of not allowing such practices.

 

[Neomalthusian]

So what is your limiting principle, what determines what precise measures are reasonable for what circumstances? What are the objective principles upon which you assess the sliding scale of reasonable response?

I'm not sure what you don't already understand about what's possible here. We have promising vaccines in development. We have hospitals that are currently strained. If we change our behavior temporarily right now so as to limit the rate of spread of this virus, then, between now and the time that vaccines are released, we could save a very large number of American lives and ensure none of our hospitals reaches critical capacity and starts having to ration care and let people die without intervention. That's my principle. Prevent hospitals from being so overrun that they have to start letting people die without intervention. If our collective behavior change could ensure this, then I think we should change our behavior collectively.

Ideally this shouldn't require any authoritarian government mandates and enforcement, we'd just shrug and do it of our own volition because it makes good sense. But a lot of Americans seem to be convincing themselves they're defending freedom by opposing any and all suggested behavior changes, even the smallest and most inconsequential of behavior changes, even if doing so has the potential to save lives or keep hospitals operating normally.

I do acknowledge what a pandemic is, a tragedy, but it is not and would not be an existential threat to human civilization, even if we didn't know that (and honestly, we really did) in the first month or so, we damn well knew it pretty quickly, that if left unchecked it would have a fatality rate of less than 2.5 percent, not that out of line with previous pandemics...

No one has claimed Covid is an extinction level event for the human species. But it does change the basic nature of our society if we devolve into a state where we have to refuse to provide hospital care to anyone over the age of (say) 60 because our hospital resources are maxed out. It's not a feature of advanced human civilization to deprive care to the elderly. But if any virus, pandemic or other event maxes out our hospitals, they have no choice but to start rationing care, and they'll do it according to age and survival probability and let the others die. They won't have another option. That would change our society.

 

[Neomalthusian]

There is NOTHING stopping people who are overly concerned (or even those who are reasonably concerned due to their age or other underlying conditions) from self-quarantining, freedom is kinda fantasitic that way.

This is actually not necessarily true at all. The only reason a lot of people are able to keep themselves home to protect themselves from the virus is because leaders in both the public and private sectors have taken the virus seriously enough to establish policies and procedures that allow people to work from home and allow their children to participate in school from home.

If people just like you (or some others around here who deny and minimize the seriousness of this pandemic) occupied all positions of leadership in the country, would there have been any support for the temporary policy changes or expenditure decisions that have enabled people to work from home and enabled their children to do school from home?

It's thanks to those decisions that enable people to actually self-isolate and protect themselves right now. From your posts, I rather suspect that if you and people who think just like you held all leadership positions, that there would be all sorts of things stopping people from being able to self-isolate, because you'd refuse to pass policies or budgets that enable it.

 

[dave8383]

So what is your limiting principle, what determines what precise measures are reasonable for what circumstances? What are the objective principles upon which you assess the sliding scale of reasonable response?

I do acknowledge what a pandemic is, a tragedy, but it is not and would not be an existential threat to human civilization, even if we didn't know that (and honestly, we really did) in the first month or so, we damn well knew it pretty quickly, that if left unchecked it would have a fatality rate of less than 2.5 percent, not that out of line with previous pandemics where we did not create massive economic disasters and spend the inflation adjusted equivalent of trillions of dollars, and incalculable human suffering. What my line of questioning reveals is that I apply the same standards of rationality to this as I do all other matters of public policy.

In the past, mitigation efforts have focused (far more legitimately) on quarantine of infected people who demonstrably pose risks to others, this one could have been handled similarly, with some additional efforts targeted at those demographics proven to be the most at risk (just the opposite of what Cuomo did) are you aware that of those who have died, nearly a third have been exposed in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities? For far less than trillions in direct economic costs, and well over 10 trillion in indirect costs, we could have focused our efforts on the truly at risk.

Even now, the "science" tells us that schools should be open, and that is just based on reasonable assessments of the immediate risks posed by opening them. It does not even begin to take into account the long-term damage being done to an entire generation with basically losing a year of education during their formative years. And this because we have idiot politicians salivating over the power and attention they have managed to seize in this time of crisis, either ignorantly or cynically making declarations about how nothing is too much to save even a single human life, and thus conditioning people to accept such a ludicrous and utterly irresponsible standard for setting public policy.

There is NOTHING stopping people who are overly concerned (or even those who are reasonably concerned due to their age or other underlying conditions) from self-quarantining, freedom is kinda fantasitic that way. My Aunt has essentially refused to leave her apartment, or allow anyone to visit, she ventures out once every couple of weeks with two masks on, and rubber gloves to go grocery shopping in the early morning when the stores are less crowded. That is her right, and that very fact and freedom in my views means the government's legitimate responsibility is not to force people to behave in a manner that they think will save lives, but to inform people of the risk, and let people in a free society decide for themselves. Unfortunately, too many people do not think very rationally, for example, I have a friend from high school who suffers from MS, she supports the lockdowns so she is not "forced to go into work and be exposed", I pointed out to her that nobody can force her to go to work, she has the absolute right to refuse. She responded that she would get fired and that is not "fair". Well guess what, her place of employment has closed permanently due to the restrictions she supports, so not only has she lost her job anyway, but so has everyone else who was not free to make choices for themselves. In her view, maximizing misery is more fare than minimizing it so long as everyone else is suffering as much as she is. And that is what happens when people place so much power in the hands fo the state and allow it to rampantly limit human freedom.

And before you make any argument about people dying for others convenience and liberty, just remember the only reason you have the luxury of liberty is because many have chosen to fight and die for it.

Dobbsy old chap said, "The poster provided a very thoughtful response and all you have is a cartoon and "alrighty than". He was right. Good post.