Supreme Court Rules 5-4 To Uphold Pandemic Orders Limiting Church Services

SCOTUS Early on in the pandemic, I wrote about how governors can shutdown churches under the Constitution.  On Friday, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to reject an emergency appeal from a California church over the imposition of limits on the size of attendance at services.  The church came close to prevailing. Chief Justice John Roberts joined his liberal colleagues in upholding what he said were limits that “appear consistent” with the First Amendment. The cost ruling is an indication of how courts are applying closer scrutiny to the treatment of churches as opposed to other institutions allowed to have greater numbers of people.

Last week, President Donald Trump has pledged that he will “override” state orders barring in-person religious services unless governors do so.  As I have previously noted, the President is claiming authority that is expressly denied to him in our system of federalism. While I have warned such deference given to the states wanes with time, any order to reopen churches in a given state will be based on the inherent authority of the courts, not the President.  The Administration can, and has promised, joined legal challenges to such state orders but it is not claiming the inherent authority of presidents to “override” state decisions.  The Justice Department has warned Newsom that his order is contravening constitutional rights.  However, now that the Supreme Court has ruled, any move by President Trump to “override” such orders would directly contravene the authority of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of what the Constitution means in such conflicts.

Roberts wrote in brief opinion that the state could restrict churches to 25% of their capacity, with no more than 100 worshipers at a time. The court also rejected an appeal from two churches in the Chicago area that objected to Gov. Jay Pritzker’s limit of 10 worshipers at religious services.

220px-File-Official_roberts_CJ_croppedIn his concurrence, Roberts wrote:

“The precise question of when restrictions on particular social activities should be lifted during the pandemic is a dynamic and fact-intensive matter subject to reasonable disagreement. Our Constitution principally entrusts “[t]he safety and the health of the people” to the politically accountable officials of the States “to guard and protect.” Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 38 (1905). When those officials “undertake[ ] to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,” their latitude “must be especially broad.” Marshall v. United States, 414 U. S. 417, 427 (1974). Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an “unelected federal judiciary,” which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people.”

440px-Judge_Brett_Kavanaugh

The Roberts decision is striking in fairly cursory treatment of the other options for the state given the obligation of the state to must show that the limits are “justified by a compelling governmental interest” and “narrowly tailored to advance that interest.” The sharp division shows, as we discussed earlier, how such deference to the states in a pandemic tends to wane with time.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that the state had failed to satisfy the high standard for review in such limits on the free exercise of religion.

“California has ample options that would allow it to combat the spread of COVID–19 without discriminating against religion. … But absent a compelling justification (which the State has not offered), the State may not take a looser approach with, say, supermarkets, restaurants, factories, and offices while imposing stricter requirements on places of worship. The State also has substantial room to draw lines, especially in an emergency. But as relevant here, the Constitution imposes one key restriction on that line-drawing: The State may not discriminate against religion.

In sum, California’s 25% occupancy cap on religious worship services indisputably discriminates against religion, and such discrimination violates the First Amendment. The Church would suffer irreparable harm from not being able to hold services on Pentecost Sunday in a way that comparable secular businesses and persons can conduct their activities. I would therefore grant the Church’s request for a temporary injunction.”

 

Here is the opinion: South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom

135 thoughts on “Supreme Court Rules 5-4 To Uphold Pandemic Orders Limiting Church Services”

    1. Who released COVID-19 in a presidential election year in which the communists were facing an inexorable and historic, terminally crushing, landslide victory by President Trump?

      Answer: Beijing, China, the global headquarters of the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America.

      The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America had no choice; it was an act of desperation, their last resort.

  1. Kavanaugh is a dope. There is a huge difference between contacts in a factory and supermarket and being static in a pew in church, where people sing, shout and thus propel droplets under force, making transmission more likely. The SCOTUS got it right. Since 80 percent of Covid19 infected are asymptomatic but can spread it to others, there should be limits, if not an outright ban on gatherings.

    1. Natacha – then Roberts needs to ban protesters and rioters. That spittle is going everywhere.

      1. Our liquor stores and marijuana dispensaries have been deemed “essential”, and they are crowded with customers. Our abortion clinics have also been deemed “essential”. However, places of worship are closed or allowed to only operate with limited attendance. There are huge numbers of “demonstrators “and looters in our streets destroying and burning down property, some with masks and many without. Few of these anarchists are being detained or prevented from carrying out their crimes. Something seems unfair here!

    2. “Kavanaugh is a dope.”

      – NUTCHACHA
      ____________

      Brett Kavanaugh is a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States appointed by the President of the United States.

      NUTCHACHA is a ______ ______ ______ _____ (fill in the blank) with a keyboard.

      I hear _______ is nice this time of year.

    3. Your understanding of the Constitution is Sophomoric… Precedent from some law case does not override the 1st Amendment. BTW, the bill of Rights is ordered with respect importance… therefore the 1st Amendment is Golden. Religious observance is not a Golf Club….

      1. The Constitution may only be modified through the constitutional amendment process.

        No judge and no court have any conceivable scintilla of power to modify the Constitution.
        ______________________________________________________________________

        “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

        “[Corrupt]…men…may do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”

        “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

        – Alexander Hamilton

    4. Kavanaugh is a dope.

      The dope has been practicing law for 30 years. You’ve pretended you’re practicing law while cashing your disability checks.

  2. This is very true, as well as fatigue due to poor ventilation

    ….

    https://headachejournal.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/head.13811

    Headaches Associated With Personal Protective Equipment – A Cross‐Sectional Study Among Frontline Healthcare Workers During COVID‐19

    Background

    Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is an emerging infectious disease of pandemic proportions. Healthcare workers in Singapore working in high‐risk areas were mandated to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) such as N95 face mask and protective eyewear while attending to patients.

    Objectives

    We sought to determine the risk factors associated with the development of de novo PPE‐associated headaches as well as the perceived impact of these headaches on their personal health and work performance. The impact of COVID‐19 on pre‐existing headache disorders was also investigated.

    Methods

    This is a cross‐sectional study among healthcare workers at our tertiary institution who were working in high‐risk hospital areas during COVID‐19. All respondents completed a self‐administered questionnaire.

    Results

    A total of 158 healthcare workers participated in the study. Majority [126/158 (77.8%)] were aged 21‐35 years. Participants included nurses [102/158 (64.6%)], doctors [51/158 (32.3%)], and paramedical staff [5/158 (3.2%)]. Pre‐existing primary headache diagnosis was present in about a third [46/158 (29.1%)] of respondents. Those based at the emergency department had higher average daily duration of combined PPE exposure compared to those working in isolation wards [7.0 (SD 2.2) vs 5.2 (SD 2.4) hours, P < .0001] or medical ICU [7.0 (SD 2.2) vs 2.2 (SD 0.41) hours, P 4 hours per day (OR 3.91, 95% CI 1.35‐11.31; P = .012) were independently associated with de novo PPE‐associated headaches. Since COVID‐19 outbreak, 42/46 (91.3%) of respondents with pre‐existing headache diagnosis either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that the increased PPE usage had affected the control of their background headaches, which affected their level of work performance.

    Conclusion

    Most healthcare workers develop de novo PPE‐associated headaches or exacerbation of their pre‐existing headache disorders.

  3. I believe Roberts has been intimidated into not voting to uphold Constitutional or conservative values any more. Shameful that this was allowed to happen. Perhaps Supreme Court members should get Secret Service protection to they may perform their duties without worrying about personal attacks or injuries to themselves or family.

    1. Roberts is a liberal hack…appointed by Bush…who was just as bad. The entire system that we were taught is so sterling, is a complete cesspool. These damn masks are a sign of submission, and silence. I will not participate!

  4. There is great harm that cloth and surgical masks can cause to people who wear them incorrectly, use them for a prolonged period of time and have cardiovascular or pulmonary comorbidities.

    Resident “commensal” microbiota are microorganisms (bacterial and fungal) that live inside us and on healthy normal persons. They outnumber human somatic and germ cells by a factor of 10. If you don’t know what somatic cells are then you’re missing the point of this discussion. Commensal microorganisms provide important roles that allows us to live. They are generally of little significance so long as the normal resident flora remains intact. However, if the resident microbiota is disturbed, transient microorganisms may colonize, proliferate, and produce disease. These can occur by wearing masks inappropriately and particularly in individuals with cardiovascular (CV) and/or pulmonary comorbidities. People with pulmonary comorbidites cough phlegm, mucous, gastric juices and introduce bacteria from these areas into the mask. The mask then becomes a vector which the oropharynx absorbs via respiration. Bacteria in the oropharynx (MRSA) then travels to the mask which is then taken into the mouth, down the esophagus and so forth.

    Masks create vectors for “normal” microorganisms to colonize, proliferate and produce disease.

    CV comorbidities provoke the immune system to respond. They possess physiologic and cellular stressor (e.g. hypoxia, narrowing of arteries due to plaque, endothelial dysfunction, cation/anion imbalance, etc) due to their CV comorbidities (e.g. hypertension, heart failure, hyperlipidemia, etc). These stressors at the cellular level result in neutrophils, monocytes, macrophages, dendritic cells (all innate immune cells) plus B Cells and T Cells (both adaptive immune cells) to react to the cellular stressors. These immune cells see the stressors as threats to the body (rightly so) and they do what they are supposed to do. This is the inherent problem with SARS-CoV-2: the immune response overreacts to the virus resulting in cytokine storm and physiological tsunami.

    The end result in part is inflammation (i.e. cytokine storm). Atherosclerosis is an inflammatory response. When these individuals wear cloth or surgical masks for prolonged periods of time and/or incorrectly, they further antagonize their CV & pulmonary systems. They are creating more barriers, more challenges to the body and the immune system is further triggered.

    To wear a mask incorrectly in public (cloth or surgical) is to antagonize the microbiota. If the person suffers a CV or pulmonary (often they have both) comorbidity, wearing a mask accelerates their demise

    Wearing a mask deters ventilation which negatively impacts perfusion which leads to hypoxia which creates an unmitigated cellular and physiologic mayhem.

    Masks are not the answer. Social distancing, yes depending on the dynamics of the region

      1. I provided maybe 2-3 dozens links to Prairie Rose and Allan on this topic going back to March, so go back to those discussions and knock yourself out. I would really like you and everyone else to digest this content and go at it mano a mano on this forum

        We already do that on another forum for physicians and researchers that I told Allan months ago. You don’t have to be a physician in some sections but others you do with verification. There is even a political physician forum that can be really nasty but its moderated

        Join us:

        https://forums.studentdoctor.net/categories/physician-resident-forums-md-do.35/

        https://forums.studentdoctor.net/categories/research-forums.107/

          1. PS I am not smart enough to go against whatever the consensus grain is in medical and scientific fields. That means I try to understand the issues, and while I acknowledge outlier info may be correct, I can’t evaluate it and decide if it is or not. If I choose the outlier stuff because it fits my political beliefs, I’m fooling myself.

          2. up to you. Choose a subforum, lurk, comment as you see fit and go from there

            If anything is offensive or vitriolic like here, the person will definitely get banned since an account must be created using a verified email address to comment. JT’s forum would benefit from such a practice

      2. If you just excerpt a quote and search for it in quotation marks, you can pull up a link. Quoted queries search for results that include that exact phrase/sentence.

      3. Assessment of Proficiency of N95 Mask Donning Among the General Public in Singapore

        JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(5):e209670. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.9670

        Our study found a low N95 VMF pass rate of 12.6%. The observation that reading pictorial instructions was not associated with increased VMF pass rates may suggest an inherent complexity to N95 mask wearing. Limitations of this study include nonresponse and recall bias.

        These findings support ongoing recommendations against the use of N95 masks by the general public during the COVID-19 pandemic.5 N95 mask use by the general public may not translate into effective protection but instead provide false reassurance. Beyond N95 masks, proficiency among the general public in donning surgical masks needs to be assessed. Policy measures that encourage mask use in the general public must be coupled with effective training materials beyond instruction leaflets, which our study and a 2013 study by Harber et al6 found to be inadequate. Other public health measures, such as social distancing, handwashing, and self-isolation when ill, are also critical.

    1. Nearly all masks worn by the general public are loose fitting one-time use
      disposable masks that are similar (if not identical) to that worn by surgeons
      and other hospital medical staff, many of whom suffer comorbidities. Ain’t
      hearing or reading about a lot of masked medical personnel dropping dead
      out there from COVID-19. Reusable (launderable) masks should not be used.

  5. Mister Wizard can kiss my butt. I’m going to Minneapolis & pick up some flat panel TV’s for free. To be used for outdoor church services.

  6. Justice Kavanaugh’s dissenting opinion has it right.

    But absent a compelling justification (which the State has not offered), the State may not take a looser approach with, say, supermarkets, restaurants, factories, and offices while imposing stricter requirements on places of worship. The State also has substantial room to draw lines, especially in an emergency. But as relevant here, the Constitution imposes one key restriction on that line-drawing: The State may not discriminate against religion.

  7. Christians need to take note, this is the beginning of the end of religious freedom in America. The next thing we know, governors will start shutting down churches that don’t follow the party line. Nearly all of the draconian policies that led to the shutdowns were taken by Democrats, governors and judges such as Lina Hidalgo, the Columbian immigrant who rules Harris County here in Texas. Rule “of the people, by the people, for the people” is now rule by governors and judges.

    1. Christians need to take note, this is the beginning of the end of religious freedom in America.

      If Americans had walked their Christian talk these past 50 years, we wouldn’t be having these problems today.

      Show us one Christian on this forum who has given witness to God by their actions, and I will show you 20 chest pounding, prideful so-called conservatives who have given all of the left wing commenters reason to cast aspersions on religion.

      They are not the enemy. They are our audience to win for Christ, a point most on here dont grasp

  8. https://www.newsweek.com/contact-tracing-wont-solve-coronavirus-crisis-says-this-renowned-epidemiologistheres-what-1506209

    What is an individual’s ability to protect themselves versus what is government’s ability to help protect them?” says Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. “We all agree that government should take drunk drivers off the road. But we also take responsibility for our own behavior and not being drunk while driving.”…….

    Economic hardship is taking a devastating toll on livelihoods and mental health. At the same time, the pandemic is far from over. … “This virus is going to continue to spread by the force of what I call viral gravity,” says Osterholm. “It’s biology, chemistry and physics. No policy decisions are going to keep it from happening.

    1. Estovir, Osterholm is very good and certainly knowledgable, but his message is there will be no easy out – he has no alternative plan, and I doubt you take all his pronouncements straight as he also says the reopening is likely to result in a disaster this fall. Nothing he offers is an alternative and those who recommend testing and contact tracing – virtually all other experts -do so for the following reasons:

      To interrupt ongoing transmission and reduce the spread of an infection
      To alert contacts to the possibility of infection and offer preventive counseling or prophylactic care
      To offer diagnosis, counseling and treatment to already infected individuals
      If the infection is treatable, to help prevent reinfection of the originally infected patient
      To learn about the epidemiology of a disease in a particular population

      Testing and contact tracing – the cheap and easy part – let us approach the problem smartly, for whatever benefit that brings. Flying blind is just dumb.

  9. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data

    Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data

    CIDRAP – Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy
    Office of the Vice President for Research, University of Minnesota

    Data lacking to recommend broad mask use

    We do not recommend requiring the general public who do not have symptoms of COVID-19-like illness to routinely wear cloth or surgical masks because:

    There is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission

    Their use may result in those wearing the masks to relax other distancing efforts because they have a sense of protection

    We need to preserve the supply of surgical masks for at-risk healthcare workers.

    Sweeping mask recommendations—as many have proposed—will not reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, as evidenced by the widespread practice of wearing such masks in Hubei province, China, before and during its mass COVID-19 transmission experience earlier this year. Our review of relevant studies indicates that cloth masks will be ineffective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whether worn as source control or as PPE. 

    Surgical masks likely have some utility as source control (meaning the wearer limits virus dispersal to another person) from a symptomatic patient in a healthcare setting to stop the spread of large cough particles and limit the lateral dispersion of cough particles. They may also have very limited utility as source control or PPE in households.

    Respirators, though, are the only option that can ensure protection for frontline workers dealing with COVID-19 cases, once all of the strategies for optimizing respirator supply have been implemented.

    We do not know whether respirators are an effective intervention as source control for the public. A non-fit-tested respirator may not offer any better protection than a surgical mask. Respirators work as PPE only when they are the right size and have been fit-tested to demonstrate they achieve an adequate protection factor. In a time when respirator supplies are limited, we should be saving them for frontline workers to prevent infection and remain in their jobs.

    Filter efficiency and fit are key for masks, respirators

    The best evidence of mask and respirator performance starts with testing filter efficiency and then evaluating fit (facepiece leakage). Filter efficiency must be measured first. If the filter is inefficient, then fit will be a measure of filter efficiency only and not what is being leaked around the facepiece.

    Filter efficiency

    Masks and respirators work by collecting particles through several physical mechanisms, including diffusion (small particles) and interception and impaction (large particles).1 N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) are constructed from electret filter material, with electrostatic attraction for additional collection of all particle sizes.2
    Every filter has a particle size range that it collects inefficiently. Above and below this range, particles will be collected with greater efficiency. For fibrous non-electret filters, this size is about 0.3 micrometers (µm); for electret filters, it ranges from 0.06 to 0.1 µm. When testing, we care most about the point of inefficiency. As flow increases, particles in this range will be collected less efficiently.

    The best filter tests use worst-case conditions: high flow rates (80 to 90 liters per minute [L/min]) with particle sizes in the least efficiency range. This guarantees that filter efficiency will be high at typical, lower flow rates for all particle sizes. Respirator filter certification tests use 84 L/min, well above the typical 10 to 30 L/min breathing rates. The N95 designation means the filter exhibits at least 95% efficiency in the least efficient particle size range.

    Studies should also use well-characterized inert particles (not biological, anthropogenic, or naturogenic ones) and instruments that quantify concentrations in narrow size categories, and they should include an N95 FFR or similar respirator as a positive control.

    1. Estovir, that column is 2 months old and while we were trying to save manufactured masks for health care workers. Most have home made masks by now and if they don’t, WTFN?

      1. How is the cloth you make today different from the cloth masks made 30 years ago?

        Here is more:

        Filter efficiency
        Masks and respirators work by collecting particles through several physical mechanisms, including diffusion (small particles) and interception and impaction (large particles).1 N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) are constructed from electret filter material, with electrostatic attraction for additional collection of all particle sizes.2
        Every filter has a particle size range that it collects inefficiently. Above and below this range, particles will be collected with greater efficiency. For fibrous non-electret filters, this size is about 0.3 micrometers (µm); for electret filters, it ranges from 0.06 to 0.1 µm. When testing, we care most about the point of inefficiency. As flow increases, particles in this range will be collected less efficiently.

        The best filter tests use worst-case conditions: high flow rates (80 to 90 liters per minute [L/min]) with particle sizes in the least efficiency range. This guarantees that filter efficiency will be high at typical, lower flow rates for all particle sizes. Respirator filter certification tests use 84 L/min, well above the typical 10 to 30 L/min breathing rates. The N95 designation means the filter exhibits at least 95% efficiency in the least efficient particle size range.

        Studies should also use well-characterized inert particles (not biological, anthropogenic, or naturogenic ones) and instruments that quantify concentrations in narrow size categories, and they should include an N95 FFR or similar respirator as a positive control.

        Fit
        Fit should be a measure of how well the mask or respirator prevents leakage around the facepiece, as noted earlier. Panels of representative human subjects reveal more about fit than tests on a few individuals or mannequins.

        Quantitative fit tests that measure concentrations inside and outside of the facepiece are more discriminating than qualitative ones that rely on taste or odor.
        Mask, N95 respirator filtering performance

        Following a recommendation that cloth masks be explored for use in healthcare settings during the next influenza pandemic,3 The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducted a study of the filter performance on clothing materials and articles, including commercial cloth masks marketed for air pollution and allergens, sweatshirts, t-shirts, and scarfs.4

        Filter efficiency was measured across a wide range of small particle sizes (0.02 to 1 µm) at 33 and 99 L/min. N95 respirators had efficiencies greater than 95% (as expected). For the entire range of particles tested, t-shirts had 10% efficiency, scarves 10% to 20%, cloth masks 10% to 30%, sweatshirts 20% to 40%, and towels 40%. All of the cloth masks and materials had near zero efficiency at 0.3 µm, a particle size that easily penetrates into the lungs.4

        Another study evaluated 44 masks, respirators, and other materials with similar methods and small aerosols (0.08 and 0.22 µm).5 N95 FFR filter efficiency was greater than 95%. Medical masks exhibited 55% efficiency, general masks 38% and handkerchiefs 2% (one layer) to 13% (four layers).
        These studies demonstrate that cloth or homemade masks will have very low filter efficiency (2% to 38%). Medical masks are made from a wide range of materials, and studies have found a wide range of filter efficiency (2% to 98%), with most exhibiting 30% to 50% efficiency.6-12

        We reviewed other filter efficiency studies of makeshift cloth masks made with various materials. Limitations included challenge aerosols that were poorly characterized13 or too large14-16 or flow rates that were too low.17

        Mask and respirator fit

        Regulators have not developed guidelines for cloth or surgical mask fit. N95 FFRs must achieve a fit factor (outside divided by inside concentration) of at least 100, which means that the facepiece must lower the outside concentration by 99%, according to the OSHA respiratory protection standard. When fit is measured on a mask with inefficient filters, it is really a measure of the collection of particles by the filter plus how well the mask prevents particles from leaking around the facepiece.

        Several studies have measured the fit of masks made of cloth and other homemade materials.13,18,19 We have not used their results to evaluate mask performance, because none measured filter efficiency or included respirators as positive controls.
        One study of surgical masks showing relatively high efficiencies of 70% to 95% using NIOSH test methods measured total mask efficiencies (filter plus facepiece) of 67% to 90%.7 These results illustrate that surgical masks, even with relatively efficient filters, do not fit well against the face.

        In sum, cloth masks exhibit very low filter efficiency. Thus, even masks that fit well against the face will not prevent inhalation of small particles by the wearer or emission of small particles from the wearer.

        One study of surgical mask fit described above suggests that poor fit can be somewhat offset by good filter collection, but will not approach the level of protection offered by a respirator. The problem is, however, that many surgical masks have very poor filter performance. Surgical masks are not evaluated using worst-case filter tests, so there is no way to know which ones offer better filter efficiency.

        Studies of performance in real-world settings

        Before recommending them, it’s important to understand how masks and respirators perform in households, healthcare, and other settings.
        Cloth masks as source control

        A historical overview of cloth masks notes their use in US healthcare settings starting in the late 1800s, first as source control on patients and nurses and later as PPE by nurses.20

        Kellogg,21 seeking a reason for the failure of cloth masks required for the public in stopping the 1918 influenza pandemic, found that the number of cloth layers needed to achieve acceptable efficiency made them difficult to breathe through and caused leakage around the mask. We found no well-designed studies of cloth masks as source control in household or healthcare settings.

        In sum, given the paucity of information about their performance as source control in real-world settings, along with the extremely low efficiency of cloth masks as filters and their poor fit, there is no evidence to support their use by the public or healthcare workers to control the emission of particles from the wearer.

        1. Estovir, surely you know that the theory is not that we are bullet proof when we wear a mask. The theory is that the virus spreads mostly by larger moist particles from our exhaling, and not as an airborne gas that hangs and travels. All the mask needs to do to HELP, is block most or all of those larger particles which do not remain suspended. I’m sure you also know that the CDC now – not 2 months ago, now – recommends the use of masks and some studies show masks reducing infection rates in some Asian countries.

          https://www.vox.com/2020/5/29/21273625/coronavirus-masks-required-virginia-china-hong-kong

          1. Show me your scientific data. I have provided mine for months

            Vox, Fox News, CNN, Breitbart, et al are not scientific sources.

            1. Estovir, I have cited authoritative and scientific sources and the Vox article is fully linked.

              1. PS While Vox definitely has a strong editorial view, it is noteworthy for providing data and sources.

                1. Sources are sources. If any publication can provide scientific sources, they are worth it

                  With that said, those of us on the front lines are experiencing data fatigue. I receive emails daily on updates from various medical journals, medical associations, web of science key word searches I have created and the university has their own train of data to push on us. I can’t read all of it but I try. So lay sources are no where on my radar.

                  The silver lining to COVID-19 is that it is educating people about:

                  RNA viruses and their pathogenicity
                  diagnostic testing (RT-PCR vs serologic)
                  difficulty in bringing treatments to market

                  HIV has never received this type of coverage so SARS-CoV-2 has helped HIV awareness in that regard

        2. Again, it’s 2 months old. They say “We found no well-designed studies of cloth masks as source control in household or healthcare settings,” but they’re obviously not addressing the studies that have been published in the last 2 months.

            1. If you want an answer to your question, look it up.

              Your question is non-responsive to my point, which is that your article doesn’t — and cannot — address relevant research published in the last 2 months.

            2. Estovir, DK if you are asking me, but your first cite talked about PPE shortages which are now outdated and there is also new evidence being developed weekly on the virus. The latest of only about a week ago found that surface transmission is less than previously thought.

              1. At the university hospital and clinics we are still short of PPE. They are rationed which is not good. Additionally, area community clinics have inferior PPE and they too are rationed

                We still have need for N95 masks in the medical setting, at least in my region. Rationing is impractical for medical professionals.

      2. Anyone who thinks home made masks are effective has no understanding of science. Additionally the NEJM just indicated that masks are not effective or necessary outside of prescribed healthcare environments. Time for Americans to start being smart instead of being sheep. Virtue signalling doesn’t save lives and usually costs them … https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

        1. “Additionally the NEJM just indicated that masks are not effective or necessary outside of prescribed healthcare environments.”

          No, the NEJM didn’t “just indicate[] that.” As that page says, “This article was published on April 1, 2020,” and so is also 2 months old.

          1. Show us the data that supports your claim that makes 2 months or 6 months relevant.

            To my knowledge the virus has not mutated in these past 2 months to effect a change of its mass, polarity, electrostatic dynamics, conformational structure or any other physical property.

            If you don’t have any such data, then you’re not following the science and just pivoting ala Kellyanne Conway

            follow the science, not the talking point

            1. I’m saying don’t exclude the most recent research from consideration.

              If you want to “follow[] the science,” you don’t exclude relevant research.

              1. I’m saying don’t exclude the most recent research from consideration.
                If you want to “follow] the science,” you don’t exclude relevant research.

                Agreed. Latest is greatest, sort of speak, but use the source as such, not a regurgitation from Fox News, WSJ, CNN, etc.

                However, latest studies build on previous studies. One of the more valuable sections in study reprints is the last section where they list their references. Good studies have pages and pages of references which are golden.

                Additionally, look at the study carefully. Not all studies are alike. The gold standard for studies is double blind, randomized control trial (RCT). Most studies today on this topic present “findings” from qualitative studies, cross sectional studies, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, all with inherent biases and flaws

                Bottom line: this is a very fluid situation and, like HIV, answers will be slow in coming. Overall we know that we have all over-reacted to SARS-CoV-2 as Gov Andrew Cuomo stated. He went on information presented to him re: nursing homes. He wouldn’t make the same decision today based on recent data. The best approach is to assess each region or situation (nursing home vs a grocery store) and go from there. What is true of COVID-19 in Manhattan NYC, NY, is not true for Manhattan, KS. Regions should dictate the approach

                Gov Ralph Northam in Virginia is posturing for political reasons, not medical. Otherwise he wouldn’t have been cavorting in Virginia Beach last week, posing with residents for selfies without masks and violating 6 feet distancing. From a physician no less. He is a politician first and foremost which is sad

                https://www.pilotonline.com/opinion/letters/vp-ed-lets-0527-20200527-lbgi7cck35by5aq4advvymrmty-story.html

                What is the governor thinking?

                THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT |
                MAY 27, 2020 | 12:00 AM

                Poor leadership
                My husband and I have been doing exactly what we have been told. We have kept our 6 feet of distance from everyone. When we have to go out, we always wear a mask. After seeing our president, governor and other officials going everywhere with no masks, I wonder what kind of example are they setting.

                Does this mean if you have authority, you can do anything you want? I don’t think so, and this is making me reevaluate my decision to listen to any of them. I will use common sense and keep my distance, but in the future I will also go and do what I feel safe doing in spite of the orders the government is dishing out.

                Beverly Hodges, Norfolk

                Mixed messages
                Re “Virginians could be required to wear masks in public soon, Northam hints” (May 22): Gov. Ralph Northam stated on Friday that masks were an important part of the next steps to Phase 2. But in “Northam checks on Oceanfront during beach’s opening weekend” (May 23), Northam is pictured with no mask, and it doesn’t seem as if he has one on him. He then allows someone from the Eastern Shore (who also doesn’t wear a mask) to take a selfie with him. I haven’t been that close to anyone except my husband in two months.

                So I presume his philosophy is “do as I say and not as I do.” It also appears that the areas that are still under the stay-at-home policy are now able to travel wherever. I have upheld most of Northam’s decisions as being the right thing to do, but I will not be doing that anymore.

                Doris C. Madison, Chesapeake

                He’s a hypocrite
                I’m confused Gov. Ralph Northam pushes social distancing and wearing face masks, yet he comes to the Virginia Beach Oceanfront with no mask, standing side by side with people taking selfies. And the citizens of Virginia are supposed to follow his guidelines. Give me a break. He’s nothing more than a hypocrite.

                Wayne White, Virginia Beach

                We saw you
                Re “A nod from Northam” (May 24): Interesting snapshots in Sunday’s newspaper showing “do as I say and not as I do.” Gov. Ralph Northam not wearing his face mask that he will no doubt be requiring all of us to wear and not practicing social distancing. Of course, Northam will most likely deny that he is in those photographs.

                Robert V. Doggett, Jr., Hampton

                This can’t be real
                Re “A nod from Northam” (May 24): The photo of Gov. Ralph Northam at Virginia Beach is a clear case of “do as I say and not as I do.” This kind of action calls into question his ability to govern the commonwealth. Were the people that were with him so oblivious to the situation that it would not draw questions? This person is a physician for gosh sakes. His actions do not bolster a willingness for others to follow his instructions. His own lack of common sense leaves a person to wonder.

                Brad Kiehner, Newport News

                1. Estovir – it is important that you all wear masks. The theatre department costume shop of my alma mater is cranking out masks like crazy. Not sure how they are selling them, since I still have N95s left, but if any one is interested, I will check it out.

        2. Thanks for the link SBG, but that is a study published in the NEJM, not the NEJM. Others may yet reply as it came out only 4 days ago. It makes some assumptions about contagion which may or may not be accurate – we should hope they are – and raises some questions about what might be called side effects of wearing masks, good and bad:

          pro: heightened awareness and thus reinforcing of social distancing and other safety measures

          1. con: Wearers may touch their face more frequently
            Wearers may act bullet proof and act with more risk

            The study is a summary of the research of others – no testing cited – and interprets the data differently than the numerous other groups who recommend masks.

  10. I think the Court made the right call here. The Churches are NOT shut down, only limited. Sick Christians, Jews, and Muslims are going to suck up public money. As long as Churches are not treated differently from other businesses.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  11. “The precise question of when restrictions on particular social activities …” Most of us do not consider worship as optional as “social activities” implies. It is a fundamental right to assemble and worship and that is what should be given “especially broad” latitude. They got it backward. Apparently this broad latitude given to the state does not apply if one is desperate for a barrel of cheese curls from Wal-Mart. Shameful.

    1. I believe in Dog and the holey spirit. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive those who trespass against us. Those who sit on the bench must flinch. For they are the high and righties.

  12. The Flynn-Kislyak transcripts and call summary were released by DNI Ratcliffe yesterday: https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05-29%20ODNI%20to%20CEG%20RHJ%20%28Flynn%20Transcripts%29.pdf

    Given the number of columns Mr. Turley has written about the Flynn legal case, the unrelated unmasking requests, related congressional testimony, …, is he going to write a column about the transcripts?

    They show that the incoming Trump admin didn’t care that Russia had just interfered in our election.
    They also show that Flynn assured Kislyak on 12/31 that “the boss [Trump] is aware” of a secure video conference between Trump and Putin requested by Kislyak on 12/29, and it’s hard to imagine that Trump wasn’t also aware by 12/31 of the sanctions portion of that 12/29 discussion. So did Trump and Flynn fail to tell Pence, or were Pence and Trump lying in claiming that Flynn had lied to Pence?

    The transcripts also make clear that the false statements Flynn was charged with are, in fact, material, contrary to the claim in the DOJ’s Motion to Dismiss, so they’re relevant to Judge Sullivan’s response to that motion. Sullivan must first submit a response (ordered by CADC) re: the writ of mandamus requested by Flynn’s counsel.

    I’m looking forward to reading Judge Sullivan’s response next week. I’ll be very surprised if CADC grants the writ.

    1. Pretty easy call that Flynn wasn’t likely a loose cannon on the Russia sanctions discussion and he was taking one for the colluder-in-chief.

      I wouldn’t be too certain about the District Appeal panel – 1 far right Trump appointee and another Bush appointee who has ruked for Trump on subpoenas. Bad draw for Sullivan having the authority to do his job.

      1. I’m not certain. But a writ of mandamus is seldom granted, and my opinion is that there isn’t a good case for one here. Either way, I also won’t be surprised if the losing party requests an en banc review.

        1. Book and Commit, the law of Bill Barr will override any of our courts. Done deal. If not, then you have a impeached President who will pardon crimes conducted on his behalf.

          1. Barr was trying to keep Trump from pardoning Flynn, as that has negative political fall-out for Trump. Trump may yet pardon Flynn, if the Motion to Dismiss isn’t granted. But Barr’s actions may do more damage to Trump and to Barr himself than had Flynn simply been sentenced for what he pleaded guilty to (possibly serving no jail time at all), because the DOJ’s Motion — and accompanying fact-finding — brings Barr’s own corruption to the fore. The Flynn perjury question may also lead to material coming out from Covington and Burling, Flynn’s previous lawyers. I’m curious to see how it all plays out.

    2. “Before General Flynn’s voce message turns on, there is an open line, barely audible chat. Someone asks Chernyshev, “Which agency are we talking about?” Chernyshev asks as to confirm if he understands the question and responds in the same time: “Which Agency hackers did the hacking? Believe me, Americans did hacked this all.” After General Flynn’s prerecorded message ends Chernyshev leaves his message, “Hello, General Flynn, my name is Dmitry, I am chief of the Russian Ambassador’s staff. The Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak would like to have a word with you at your convenience. Can you kindly call us back?”

      LAUGHING OUT LOUD. The ‘secret open line’ our intel services had tapped says it all – THE RUSSIANS DID NOT DO IT, they know it was internal to America.

      Thanks for the link, you’re guilty as charged.

    3. They show that the incoming Trump admin didn’t care that Russia had just interfered in our election.
      _____________________________________________________________________
      They show Flynn and Kislyak didn’t care. So what?
      ____________________________________________________________________
      So did Trump and Flynn fail to tell Pence, or were Pence and Trump lying in claiming that Flynn had lied to Pence?
      ______________________________________________________________________
      Again, So what?
      _________________________________________________________________________
      The transcripts also make clear that the false statements Flynn was charged with are, in fact, material
      _______________________________________________________

      What false statements did Flynn make? He was ask by the FBI if the call was about sanctions and Flynn responded “not really” and indeed we can now see the call was mostly not about sanctions.
      The simple fact remains that the FBI agents that conducted the interview said that Flynn did not lie to them and the rest of the FBI team agreed with that assessment.

      Then after the FBI had found no crime with which Flynn could be charged the DOJ takes over the investigation and the FBI is thrown off the case. 6 months later the DOJ with Flynn’s help concocted the story that Flynn lied to the FBI and presented that information as a basis for a guilty plea. There is no way that the DOJ could have convicted Flynn, based on the evidence record the FBI created, without Flynn’s assistance.

      Now both Flynn and the DOJ have moved to have the information (i.e. lies) that they presented to the court tossed out and the case dismissed.

  13. Roberts is a snake and has a warped view of the Constitution. Someone must have nasty pics of him or something.

    1. No doubt at least CJ Roberts is completely compromised & maybe some of the others.

      Here is the song: Take 6 feet & shove it

    2. All this is to say that you will now be attending Catholic Church Liturgies given your “Roberts is a snake” comment. Apparently Pentecost came one day early and descended on you Paul. Bring Mespo

      Maranatha!

      http://cms.usccb.org/bible/readings/053120-day.cfm

      Pentecost, May 31 2020
      Mass during the Day
      Lectionary: 63

      Reading 1 ACTS 2:1-11

      When the time for Pentecost was fulfilled,
      they were all in one place together.
      And suddenly there came from the sky
      a noise like a strong driving wind,
      and it filled the entire house in which they were.
      Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire,
      which parted and came to rest on each one of them.
      And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit
      and began to speak in different tongues,
      as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim.

  14. Roberts abdicates his oath because he’s too stupid to make a ‘judgement call’, he directly admits that, but blames the entire judiciary as suffering from the same personal problem. He takes a dive for ‘professional courtesy’.
    If he knew more, he could change his ruling.
    His ruling also rests on the idea that the best judgement is already made, because he’s an idiot. He could just say, I lick ‘doctors’ boots, case closed. That’s what he said.

    Kavanaugh actually tried to apply the Constitution, like it actually exists.
    Like the Bill of Rights exists, for real.
    I guess it wasn’t erased from his brain in multiple seizures.
    Maybe the horrible public rape he endured from the overlords in power during the ascending turned him into an American with Founder’s Spirit.
    He probably understands those in power can actually make gigantic, unbelievable, horrible, ongoing mistakes and atrocities against the people.

  15. December 7th, 1941, is a day which will live in infamy.
    So sayeth some dork President from New York. Ever since that day the pandemics of war and flu have buried our Constitution.
    The H bomb has hit the churches.

  16. There is no justification for this. It is becoming more and more apparent that the Covid virus is just a scam.
    Masks are not important
    Masks need to be worn and have to be N95.
    Masks can be cloth.
    Covid lives on surfaces.
    Covid doesn’t transmit from surfaces.
    Elderly are most at risk.
    99.97% of us will not die from covid.
    The wealthiest billionaires have made on average 14.7% the last couple of months. (Bezos and Zuckergurg have made 30.6% and 46.2% respectfully)
    Most of us have lost about 25% or more on our 401K’s.

    Here’s a fun article to read

    https://www.theburningplatform.com/2020/05/24/what-would-cool-hand-luke-virgil-hilts-do/

    I’ve gone full Virgil Hilts and will not be wearing my mask anymore. I did it yesterday at the grocery store and it was liberating.

    1. I like rebellion in the face of this outrageous hold on life of half or more of the world’s population.
      It seems to me roberts has always had one too many seizures or two too many illegally adopted children from Ireland.

      “Roberts wrote in brief opinion that the state could restrict churches to 25% of their capacity, with no more than 100 worshipers at a time. The court also rejected an appeal from two churches in the Chicago area that objected to Gov. Jay Pritzker’s limit of 10 worshipers at religious services.”

      So this idiot pics two arbitrary numbers and just goes with the beast. He’s not quite as stupid as Prickster, but the ten commandments no doubt decided the number there for both of them.

      If they can claim “to themselves only” they are being ‘reasonable’, the law doesn’t matter to the overlords. That is absolutely obvious.

    2. Lets see if we can unpack this a little. There are approximately 330,000,000 people living in the US today. A 99.97% survival rate means a .03% mortality rate. That means we could see 9,900,000 deaths from Corona-19.

      My country never called me to go overseas. I never was asked to enter burning wreckage to pull ammunition away from the flames then return to pull WIA to safety. We don’t know my metal.

      But if doing something simple like wearing a mask or staying 6 feet distant can possibly save some of 9,900,000 million people – then count me in. I am good with that. I cannot understand why anyone would object.

      1. I see math is not your strong suit.
        .03 goes into 99.97 three thousand three hundred and thirty two times
        In other words, out of any 3,332 Americans ‘infected’ 1 dies.

        Let’s use your stupid take and assume as you did everyone gets infected and thus in your nutty mind has a chance to die… and we’ll use your population number. So we’re already giving you a 100% infection rate which is a lie in your favor.

        330,000,000 divided by 3,332 should give us the dead number you claimed was
        9,900,000, almost ten million…. the actual number calculating

        99,039 ninety nine thousand and thirty nine

        So, 9.9 million NO
        99 thousand, YES

        Thanks for not paying attention in math class. But, blabbering anyway about math.

        1. Thank you for reading my comment.

          By your data the mortality rate is .o3%. The population is approximately 330,000,000.

          My calculator shows very clearly the product is 9,900,000 deaths.

          Lets see if we can clear this up.

          330,000,000
          x .03

          9,900,000.00

          We multiply the numbers then move the decimal place two digits to the left.
          Yep, that checks out right.

          Hope that helps. I was lucky enough to finish elementary school before the invention of hand held calculators and was forced to learn my times tables.

          Of course there are some who will probably claim that arithmetic has a liberal bias.

          1. .o3 is not .o3%

            .03 is THREE PERCENT

            Glad you have no idea what the mortality rate is.

            Not glad you’re retarded from my view.

          2. Let’s try again tardy… but certain of himself. Removing all doubt.

            “A 99.97% survival rate means a .03% mortality rate.”
            “By your data the mortality rate is .o3%.”

            Those are your words, quoted exactly. It is your rate, you claimed.
            please note:

            99.97% survival

            is NOT ~97% survival, as you have ‘calculated’

          3. Well goofball have you found your mental embolism error yet ?
            Or did you just run away in shame and not man up ?

      2. If that was too complicated for your mind, I’ll give you another way to understand.
        You said 9,900,000 so lets call it ten million 9.9 million is 10 million rounded close

        10 million of 330 million, is one in 33, or THREE PERCENT … 3.0%

        10 mil goes into 330 mil, 33 times. 10×33 =330

        10 million is one out of 33

        if one out of every 33 is dead, that’s 3 per 100 (3×33 is 99, but close enough to 100)

        3 out of 100 is THREE PERCENT. 3.0

        Not .03

        1. Your math/arithmetic is clearly incorrect.
          As was pointed out, .03% is not .03
          .03% = .0003
          Continuing your attempted calculation . . .
          .0003 x 330,000,000 = 99000
          From a BSEE
          If engineers used your calculations people would die from bridges collapsing.

      3. We don’t know my metal.

        Well luckyjim, we do now know your math skills aren’t your metal. Since your opinion was rooted in a false calculation, are you prepared to recalculate your opinion?

    3. Jim, it s not a hoax, I know 2 people who had it and it was a mfer. The one guy said he coughed until he fainted numerous times and lost 50 pounds. He is older, but the symptoms don’t get better with youth, they just probably don’t kill you. Others have minor to no symptoms. “Are you feeling lucky punk?”

      By the way, recent CDC report says that surfaces are not as good mediums for transmittal as previously thought. Take it safe and wear a mask for others. The world is not your crib.

      1. General police powers are vested in state governments and we benefit from variation in approach, not only because local conditions differ, but because we haven’t the data to know what is a circumstantially optimal approach.

        1. Absurd, seriously, do you understand that the current situation is chaos with states competing for scarce resources, bidding against each other, without a functioning national plan for a national problem? You want and can have local, i.e., state administration of their resources, but absent federal power to produce and purchase needed equipment (the states don;t have that power) and a national plan for fairly allocating those resources based on need, it’s headless, i.,e. stupid, monster.

          This is rudimentary organizational stuff and there is no binary choice between states and the feds, Properly conceived and developed, those are part of the same team.

          Instead we have a President refusing his duty, afraid to take responsibility, undercutting the governors who insists are in charge, and even undercutting the now unmentioned national guidelines his administration produced. You get a toddler in charge, you’ll get feces on the wall.

          1. Glad we have a toddler, we should have more of a toddler, in fact we should have had a ‘zygote’ as you idiots call it, then it could have been aborted.

            We have the world at our fingertips, and the world has shown not locking down like nazi idiots and not being liberal idiots while doing it was and is the way to go.

            Instead, we don’t have just your toddler in charge, you have made certain everyone is a toddler. EVERYONE.

            This has NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE. It’s your new tyranny, and you want more of it. You and yours on the wrong side of common sense and freedom, again, and it’s MURDER.

            You take what is known, and pretend it isn’t. The vast majority of the populace has ZERO to worry about. You call it a pot shot, a gamble. YOU ARE FULL OF IT.

            Not only is everyone an infant on the brink of death in your scenario, everyone is also a murderer.

            It’s as if an infected person who died was a perfect example of 100% health before covid took that gamble, you feel lucky punk, and killed it dead.

            Well, you’re just a LIAR. Everyone with common sense knows the sick and pill popping pre conditioned vulnerable are to be protected, not the healthy and the overwhelming vast majority of the population.

            YOU’LL JUST HAVE TO BE A MAN. I KNOW IT’S ASKING TOO MUCH.

            The whole thing is the most pathetic display of cowardice and safe spaces and being moronic wimps nationwide I have ever seen in my entire life, and instead of containing it to the proper level, it is spewed upon everyone, literally everyone.

          2. Absurd, seriously, do you understand that the current situation is chaos with states competing for scarce resources,

            I do not ‘understand’ that, because the description has no reality outside your imagination.

            Very little of what you say has anything to do with anything in meatspace. It has to do with your vanity and your emotional disorders. I’m not paid to listen to that.

      2. I know one person who died from it.
        But she was 89 with Alzheimers and cardiovascular disease.

    4. PS Jim – The way back to work smartly, so we don’t end up back in this again only worse, is testing and contact tracing. Any expert will tell you that, and yet we have no plan for achieving this because we have no plan at all. We have 50 plans and a president who undercuts them at will and as it fits his political instincts, not his leadership instincts.

      Based on repeated polling, people are not staying home mostly because of rules but out of fear. The way to fix that is having a smart plan, not pretending it will go away on it”s own.

      1. You’re a MORON. People have had contact the whole time. People have been defying your nazi mengele tyranny because they know it’s I N S A N E.

        They aren’t dropping dead. If you’re a crippled old sickly man sucking down pharmaceuticals like candy then YOU STAY HOME YOU IDIOT.

      2. “…so we don’t end up back in this again only worse, is testing and contact tracing. Any expert will tell you that…”

        WE CANNOT YOU IDIOT. IT ALREADY KILLED SICK OLD PILL SUCKERS.

        The only time liberal retards are not for survival of the fittest darwin evolution is when their nazi tyranny overlord fascist corporate communism for the entire lot of the masses is in play.

        Then we must destroy the whole world for sick, dying, pill poppers already on their death beds. Only because the liberal psycho gets to tell the whole world what to do, and it’s NOT TO THEIR PERSONAL BENEFIT.

  17. How is this consistent with the first amendment. I don’t see that argument being made by Roberts. What good is the bill of rights if it is void when the government declares an emergency?

    1. Roberts argument is the typical one of tyrants that we must trust our rulers when they infringe on our rights if they wrap themselves in some claim of emergency.

      Kavanaugh’s dissent is correct.

      Whether in emergency or not, government may not ever treat religion worse than other similar situations.

      But it is increasingly evident that there must be more, and not just regarding religion.

      Turley notes correctly that there is no unitary emergency power vested in the president to override governors.

      But what the court completely misses is that emergency powers whether of presidents or mayors or govenors MUST be subject to review, And not just that of the courts. The courts are their to decide if emergency measures are consitutional.
      or legal – something SCOTUS just failed miserably at.
      But there must be a legislative override on emergency powers too.

      SCOTUS properly upheld Trump’s Emergency Wall funding – Congress was perfectly free to override Trump, but did not manage to do so.

      These edicts of governors can not be the “law of the land” for more than a short duration, absent the blessing of the legislature.

      Trump’s emergency wall funding – did not actually make new law, It just funded from other emergency funds something Congress had already approved but not funded.

      The edicts of governors, are no more than memos on napkins, but with the same force as actual legislated and officially enacted laws.

      That can only be legitimate for very short times.

      It is well past time that governors must be required to get the approval of their legislatures to give legitamcy to these edicts imposed by fiat.

      We have by protracted state of emergency given governors both legislative and executive powers and that can not last long. It is already far too long.

      That is unlikely to help churches in California.

      1. That’s some factually challenged dog food there.

        The courts just did review it.

        The Congress did nix the wall money – I can’t wait to see the “libertarian” response when Pres AOC pulls another similar stunt – the bar has been lowered and the animals will get out.

        Good thig John wasn’t around for the WWs or he’d have been in drama queen override.

      2. Justice Roberts was right, as were the other Justices with whom he voted.

        Church gatherings are prolonged, seated and ripe for transmission of any pathogen particularly aerosol Think of it as a super-spreader event. Church gatherings, as the SCOTUS ruling stated, are similar to auditorium conferences, university gatherings, ballroom conferences and so forth. Shopping at a grocery store is not seated, not prolonged and people are moving.

        I am going to Mass this Sunday and was asked to be the sole Lector for the service. I know how to conduct myself in these situations considering I’ve been wearing surgical masks since I first started working in hospitals as a teen. However, wearing a mask in a grocery store….nah. Pointless from an infectious disease perspective.

        Justice Roberts is right. Gov Ralph Northam is wrong

        From the SCOTUS ruling:

        Similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time. And the Order exempts or treats more leni- ently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods.

        1. I know how to conduct myself in these situations considering…

          So you’re saying our 1st amendment right is subject to a measurable medical expertise? Yeah, I don’t think so.

          Shopping at a grocery store is not seated, not prolonged and people are moving.

          30 minutes in a market with strangers constantly moving around you is safer than attending Church with people you know and trust?

          Prove it.

          1. 30 minutes in a market with strangers constantly moving around you is safer than attending Church with people you know and trust? Prove it

            I trust people to not know their health status. Universal precautions is key

            1. I trust people to not know their health status.

              No, you trust moving strangers in a market and not seated parishoners at your Church.

    2. Save it for another day snowflake Stan. No one’s trying to take away your right to party permanently.

Leave a Reply