• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SCOTUS shoots down Cuomo's bigotry and discrimination

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,587
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

The as SCOTUS finally upheld the constitution and shot down Cuomo's religious bigotry and discrimination.

As we have seen before Roberts betrays his duty as a judge to uphold the constitution of the US.

Gorsuch put the nail in the coffin of Roberts and Cuomo.

It is a sad day when the court is split on upholding a constitutional right against discrimination and bigotry.
 

Cameron

Politically Correct
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
5,804
Reaction score
4,868
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
As predicted, SCOTUS going off the rails now. Roberts wanted badly to keep the Court insulated from partisan politics, but he has lost his control.

There is no logical comparison between liquor stores which people visit one at a time, and a Church or synagogue which people visit collectively in large numbers. But the conservative justices are not moved by logic, only by ideology.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,587
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As predicted, SCOTUS going off the rails now. Roberts wanted badly to keep the Court insulated from partisan politics, but he has lost his control.

How is uphold the constitution and shooting down discriminatory policies going off the rail?
you guys are supposed to hate discrimination but here you are supporting it.

yes robert's has lost control of himself the past few rulings. he is off the rails and gas betrayed his oath to uphold and protect the constitution.

There is no logical comparison between liquor stores which people visit one at a time, and a Church or synagogue which people visit collectively in large numbers. But the conservative justices are not moved by logic, only by ideology.

Please prove that only 1 person at a time enters a liquor store. you can't. a liquor store has as many people in it as allowed by law.

so a church can have just as many people as allowed by law. the law has to be the same for both churches and liquor stores.

no they were moved by logic and constitutional protections.

your projection fallacies of what you do is not the courts problem it is yours.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
61,959
Reaction score
43,389
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Then the deaths of those people who get infected with be on SCOTUS' hands
 

NewfieMom

I read, therefore I am.
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
6,463
Reaction score
7,129
Location
New England, United States
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
You know those Christians like Cuomo. You never can trust them. Thank God we have a Supreme Court to enforce the supremacy of religion over health. Otherwise those Christian governors would run rampant over the rights of decent American church goers.
 

Guyzilla

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 26, 2020
Messages
3,672
Reaction score
1,361
Location
menifee calif.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
How is uphold the constitution and shooting down discriminatory policies going off the rail?
you guys are supposed to hate discrimination but here you are supporting it.

yes robert's has lost control of himself the past few rulings. he is off the rails and gas betrayed his oath to uphold and protect the constitution.



Please prove that only 1 person at a time enters a liquor store. you can't. a liquor store has as many people in it as allowed by law.

so a church can have just as many people as allowed by law. the law has to be the same for both churches and liquor stores.

no they were moved by logic and constitutional protections.

your projection fallacies of what you do is not the courts problem it is yours.
Obviously, if anyone is inconvenienced more than another, it is unconstitutional. So, we cannot react to the death rate, or the hospitalization rate, or anything else. Including natural disasters. Someone will sue. And with the corporate court now, they will win.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
34,184
Reaction score
17,062
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

The as SCOTUS finally upheld the constitution and shot down Cuomo's religious bigotry and discrimination.

As we have seen before Roberts betrays his duty as a judge to uphold the constitution of the US.

Gorsuch put the nail in the coffin of Roberts and Cuomo.

It is a sad day when the court is split on upholding a constitutional right against discrimination and bigotry.

Another 5-4 split in the SC. It is interesting that with the split it shows the Constitution is not black and white when it comes to interpreting it. It show personal bias plays a role. Those that favor removing the limits will say the 5 judges were correct. Those who favor having the limits stay in place will say the minority ruling was correct and the majority opinion was wrong.

For me a 5-4 decision tells me the ruling does not send a strong message that the Governor order over reached.
 

Cameron

Politically Correct
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
5,804
Reaction score
4,868
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Please prove that only 1 person at a time enters a liquor store. you can't. a liquor store has as many people in it as allowed by law.

so a church can have just as many people as allowed by law. the law has to be the same for both churches and liquor stores.

no they were moved by logic and constitutional protections.

your projection fallacies of what you do is not the courts problem it is yours.
Come on, is your argument seriously that people attend liquor stores and bike stores in the same fashion they do churches? The fact that Churches are attended by 20, 30, 40, 100, 500 people at once distinguishes them from liquor stores. That you don't acknowledge this is completely on trend for you. That a justice of the Supreme Court does not acknowledge it is a new phenomenon and shameful.

If Cuomo had singled out churches but not secular weddings you might have a point, but those aren't the facts, so you don't.
 

COTO

Panthera Uncia
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 4, 2019
Messages
3,787
Reaction score
1,532
Location
Toronto, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Aren't New York state's casinos open for business since September?
 

joko104

Banned
Suspended
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As predicted, SCOTUS going off the rails now. Roberts wanted badly to keep the Court insulated from partisan politics, but he has lost his control.

There is no logical comparison between liquor stores which people visit one at a time, and a Church or synagogue which people visit collectively in large numbers. But the conservative justices are not moved by logic, only by ideology.

There is a logical comparison between WalMart stores that thousands of people go in every day - all day and night - and a Church or synagogue that has 30 people for 1 hour once a week. But the corporate-fascist justices were only moved by the ideology of greed of the richest people on earth.
 

Rogue Valley

Putin = War Criminal
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
81,660
Reaction score
66,635
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What we have here is Barrett's dedication to religion trumping the duty of the state to protect its citizens in emergency situations.

What's next? The SC declaring a fire evacuation order unconstitutional because a church objects?

The SC badly needs reforms.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,587
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Obviously, if anyone is inconvenienced more than another, it is unconstitutional. So, we cannot react to the death rate, or the hospitalization rate, or anything else. Including natural disasters. Someone will sue. And with the corporate court now, they will win.
nothing to do with what i posted.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,587
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Another 5-4 split in the SC. It is interesting that with the split it shows the Constitution is not black and white when it comes to interpreting it. It show personal bias plays a role. Those that favor removing the limits will say the 5 judges were correct. Those who favor having the limits stay in place will say the minority ruling was correct and the majority opinion was wrong.

For me a 5-4 decision tells me the ruling does not send a strong message that the Governor order over reached.
it is black and white 4 judges do not understand what their role is.

actually it does.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,587
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Come on, is your argument seriously that people attend liquor stores and bike stores in the same fashion they do churches? The fact that Churches are attended by 20, 30, 40, 100, 500 people at once distinguishes them from liquor stores. That you don't acknowledge this is completely on trend for you. That a justice of the Supreme Court does not acknowledge it is a new phenomenon and shameful.

If Cuomo had singled out churches but not secular weddings you might have a point, but those aren't the facts, so you don't.
the facts are if you allow a business to operate at 50% capacity then you must allow churches. you cannot discriminate.

why do you support discrimination?
the court evidently doesn't.
 

Rudy

Smartass
Banned
Joined
Nov 14, 2020
Messages
1,522
Reaction score
978
Location
N. East of the country, the educated part.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
34,184
Reaction score
17,062
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
it is black and white 4 judges do not understand what their role is.

actually it does.
So when it is 5 that go against your views then the 4 conservative judges are wrong. Like when Roberts sided with the liberal judges on abortion rejecting the Louisiana law, the 4 conservative judges did not understand what their role is. Got it.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,587
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So when it is 5 that go against your views then the 4 conservative judges are wrong. Like when Roberts sided with the liberal judges on abortion rejecting the Louisiana law, the 4 conservative judges did not understand what their role is. Got it.
it depends on the case and what the constitution says.
the constitutions say that you cannot discriminate against religous organizations.

if you allow public businesses to operate at 50% capacity then you must let churches.

the SCOTUS followed the constitution. it is sad that 4 of the judges don't know the constitution that well and it is worse that the chief justice once again makes up some flim flam excuse to shoot down religous protections that are enshrined in the document he swore to protect.

sorry your projection of what my argument is why you just lost.
 

COTO

Panthera Uncia
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 4, 2019
Messages
3,787
Reaction score
1,532
Location
Toronto, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What we have here is Barrett's dedication to religion trumping the duty of the state to protect its citizens in emergency situations.

What's next? The SC declaring a fire evacuation order unconstitutional because a church objects?

The SC badly needs reforms.
You realize that the restriction had been lifted by the time the issue reached the SCOTUS and that three of the four dissenting opinions were on the basis that no judgment against Gov. Cuomo's administration was immediately required?

If the restriction hadn't already been lifted, it might well have been an 8-1 ruling against Gov. Cuomo.
 

RAMOSS

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
62,963
Reaction score
27,358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As predicted, SCOTUS going off the rails now. Roberts wanted badly to keep the Court insulated from partisan politics, but he has lost his control.

There is no logical comparison between liquor stores which people visit one at a time, and a Church or synagogue which people visit collectively in large numbers. But the conservative justices are not moved by logic, only by ideology.
It also is totally irrelevant, since the places in question were suing because they were put under a 'red zone' due to a strong spike in their zip code and they were a covid 19 hot spot. That lasted all of 3 weeks, and then the restrictions were reduced since the new infection rate had been cut in half.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,937
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
As predicted, SCOTUS going off the rails now. Roberts wanted badly to keep the Court insulated from partisan politics, but he has lost his control.

There is no logical comparison between liquor stores which people visit one at a time, and a Church or synagogue which people visit collectively in large numbers. But the conservative justices are not moved by logic, only by ideology.

It's called "The Equal Protection Clause". It's in The Constitution. Check it out.

Gorsuch called it when he said it's amazing how the covid rules fall right in line with the Left's secular agenda.
 

Ginger Ale

Feels good!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2020
Messages
8,566
Reaction score
8,230
Location
Arizona
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
It's called "The Equal Protection Clause". It's in The Constitution. Check it out.

Gorsuch called it when he said it's amazing how the covid rules fall right in line with the Left's secular agenda.
So it's the religious rule then? America has a secular government last I checked. Are we now headed toward a middle east style government where religion plays a key part in our government decisions? It's becoming clear what the motives for Trump's SC justices are. It looks like he's fulfilled some promises to the hardcore Christians of this country. Seems Guiliani is also wanting to bring Trump's election disputes to the SC. I think we know why. They have favors to pay off.

I think we've made a big mistake. This is a safety issue, and even with all these prayers, church staff and members are currently dying from Coronavirus. They need to be protected, just like the general population.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,937
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
So it's the religious rule then? America has a secular government last I checked. Are we now headed toward a middle east style government where religion plays a key part in our government decisions? It's becoming clear what the motives for Trump's SC justices are. It looks like he's fulfilled some promises to the hardcore Christians of this country. Seems Guiliani is also wanting to bring Trump's election disputes to the SC. I think we know why. They have favors to pay off.

I think we've made a big mistake. This is a safety issue, and even with all these prayers, church staff and members are currently dying from Coronavirus. They need to be protected, just like the general population.

The United States also has a constitution that says two very imoortant things that apply in this case. One is: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The second is:
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.

What's been done, is religious gatherings have been held to a different standard than any other group, or entity and there's no arguing that that isn't the case.
 

KYDemocrat

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2020
Messages
117
Reaction score
54
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
the facts are if you allow a business to operate at 50% capacity then you must allow churches. you cannot discriminate.

why do you support discrimination?
the court evidently doesn't.
Churches used to not be considered businesses, but now they are all becoming a huge tax free money making scheme. They're run by the most anti-religious people in the country and are now awarded bailouts by taxpayer money to beef up the pockets of the anti-religious scammers. They can go to hell
 
Top Bottom