The Supreme Court Bars Cuomo’s Pandemic Limits On Houses of Worship

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a surprising blow to pandemic restrictions on house of worship in a late night order barring the enforcement of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s Oct. 6 “Cluster Initiative” limiting attendance at religious services.  Five justices (including newly installed Justice Amy Coney Barrett) blocked the limits while allowing the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to hear the merits in the case. Notably, Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the liberal justices but only because he felt that the order was not needed since the plaintiffs were not currently subject to the most severe limits.

Five conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Barrett – sided with the religious groups  while Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented. Notably, this is the first major ruling where Barrett’s addition to the Court was determinative as the swing vote. If Ruth Bader Ginsburg was still on the Court, this would have gone 5-4 in favor of New York.

The initiative created color-coded limits on mass gatherings and business operations with houses of worship in designated red zones limited to 25% of their capacity or 10 people, whichever is fewer. The area around a “red” zone is designated an “orange” zone with limited of 25 people and the area around that zone is designed “yellow” with limits up to 50% of a building’s maximum capacity.

The diocese filed with the Supreme Court on Nov. 12 and synagogues followed suit on Nov. 16. Notably, however, Cuomo then maintained that these parties were in the yellow zones and thus not hit by the harsher limits.

That fact clearly persuaded Roberts who saw no reason for the Court to intervene before the Second Circuit ruled on the merits. He wrote that “Numerical capacity limits of 10 and 25 people, depending on the applicable zone, do seem unduly restrictive. It is not necessary, however, for us to rule on that serious and difficult question at this time.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh pushed back and noted that there is “no good reason” not to act now since these houses of worship could return to the more restrictive zones and, if they did not, the court’s rulings “will impose no harm on the State and have no effect on the State’s response to COVID–19.”

The most interesting observations came from the short concurrence of Justice Neil Gorsuch who noted that “[e]ven if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical.” The analysis at points dripped with sarcasm at Cuomo’s priorities:

“At the same time, the Governor has chosen to impose no capacity restrictions on certain businesses he considers “essential.” And it turns out the businesses the Governor considers essential include hardware stores, acupuncturists, and liquor stores. Bicycle repair shops, certain signage companies, accountants, lawyers, and insurance agents are all essential too. So, at least according to the Governor, it may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians. Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience?”

He then added:

“It is time — past time — to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques.”

One portion of Roberts’ dissenting opinion seemed to me particularly noteworthy. He seemed to take Gorsuch to task for his rhetoric and the suggestion that his liberal colleagues were tossing aside religious freedom:

“As noted, the challenged restrictions raise serious concerns under the Constitution, and I agree with JUSTICE KAVANAUGH that they are distinguishable from those we considered in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U. S. ___ (2020), and Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, 591 U. S. ___ (2020). See ante, at 1, 3–4 (concurring opinion). I take a different approach than the other dissenting Justices in this respect. To be clear, I do not regard my dissenting colleagues as “cutting the Constitution loose during a pandemic,” yielding to “a particular judicial impulse to stay out of the way in times of crisis,” or “shelter[ing] in place when the Constitution is under attack.” Ante, at 3, 5–6 (opinion of GORSUCH, J.). They simply view the matter differently after careful study and analysis reflecting their best efforts to fulfill their responsibility under the Constitution.”

Justice Sotomayor also seemed to push back on the framing:

“Free religious exercise is one of our most treasured and jealously guarded constitutional rights. States may not discriminate against religious institutions, even when faced with a crisis as deadly as this one. But those principles are not at stake today.”

The order is obviously encouraging news for those challenging these pandemic orders that they could have a 5 or even 6 justice majority on such limitations. This case could make it back to the Court after the Second Circuit ruling, though much could change on these pandemic orders in the coming weeks to moot the case.


378 thoughts on “The Supreme Court Bars Cuomo’s Pandemic Limits On Houses of Worship”

  1. The Inside Drama Behind Trump’s Schemes To Overturn Election

    Today’s Washington Post offers this feature-length piece telling us where Trump’s head was at between Election Night and Thanksgiving.

    On Election Night, Edison Research, contracted by Fox News, called Arizona for Biden to Trump’s utter shock and dismay. Trump had assumed he would carry Arizona. Trump also imagined he would be positioned to pull-off a second, Electoral College-Only-Victory. In fact, Trump schemed to declare victory on Election Night. But when Fox called Arizona for Biden, Trump’s scheme went out the window!

    At this point Trump resorted to Plan A: ‘Suing key states to nullify their election results’. Trump and his lawyers had discussed this plot since June. Unfortunately for Trump, the courts wouldn’t play along. Even Republican-appointed judges wanted nothing to do the plot. Trump lacked solid evidence to nullify state results.

    By Mid-November Trump fell back on Plan B: ‘Badgering Republican legislators to nullify their election results’. But here again Trump encountered enough Republicans with integrity to render the scheme stillborn.

    Then, to Trump’s horror, Rudy Giuliani’s news conference with Sidney Powell flopped quite horribly. Even Trump could see how foolish they appeared; promoting fantastic claims involving Hugo Chavez.

    Sensing the gig was up, Trump reluctantly allowed the GSA to enable Biden’s transition.

    1. And had you followed the law you would not be facing Trump’s challenges.

      Of course had you followed the law – it is not likely you would have won either.

      Trump expected to win – because he would have won a legitimate election – easily.

        1. You do not seem to grasp what is at stake here.

          47% of the country beleives that there was substantial fraud in this election.

          If as you seem to be pushing – the courts do not inquire deeply – that loss of faith in the election process WILL have very bad results.

          There are a long list of possibilities – but TWO that come to mind easily are:

          Armed peaceful intervention. We were already headed there before the election. Since the election the violence of left wing bnbut counter protestors targeting those demanding a real inquiry are likely to result in Trump protestors providing their OWN armed security.

          We saw peaceful armed protests in Michigan to the lockdown – why do you think that can not expand ?

          Another possibility is the response Republicans have traditionally made to democratic tactics.

          What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

          Do you think that Atlanta, Philadelphia, Detroit and Milwaikee are the only places capable of mailin voter fraud ?

          Regardless, if you do not provide serious inquiry that mollifies over 100M americans – the consequences will not be good – whatever they are.

          You are playing with fire. You are not dealing with a bunch of antifa teenagers. You are dealing with actual adults.

          You do not seem to understand that you do not have a legitimate government if you do not have confidence in elections.

          If you honestly beleive there was no fraud – then you should have allowed inquiry from the start.

          But the left has played chicken in this election – and even if they end up inaugurating Biden- there will be a very high price to pay.

          You went out of your way to HIDE the process and to destroy the evidence. In some instances inquiry is no longer possible – the result MIGHT be getting away with it. But it will also mean you will never be able to persuade those who do not trust you that your conduct was trustworthy.

          Democrats love to virtue signal. But in the end you demonstrate that you are NOT moral people.

            1. One of the long running themes in the left/right conflict of the past decades is that the left’s perception of everything is confined to immediate self gratification. The thought that whatever they are doing at any moment will be used against them in the next, does not cross their minds.

              JF and those like him are unable to grasp that whatever conduct he permits in 2020 – we will see from both parties in the next election.

              As I noted Democrats legalized Ballot Harvesting in CA for thr 2018 election – and that allowed them to pick up several house seats and take control of the house. In 2020 Republicans engaged in the same ballot harvesting as democrats and took the seats back.

              We can play this forever.

              Integrity, morality, the rule of law are not ends justifies the means constructs.

              Integrity and morality are the ability to follow the law, to do what is right and lawful – even when you may personally prefer a different result.

    2. Anon: “. . . promoting fantastic claims involving Hugo Chavez.”

      Leave it to WaPo to push their evaluation of a claim, while ignoring the facts of the claim.

      Smartmatic, whose voting systems are widely used in the U.S., did in fact get its start in Venezuela, and did in fact play a key role in fraudulent Venezuelan elections. Those facts have been widely reported for years.

      From “The Atlantic,” back in 2013:

      Venezuela’s “electronic voting machines have been the subject of suspicion since 2004, when the government contracted with a Miami-based company, Smartmatic, to procure them, abandoning the previous system of paper ballots. Smartmatic was secretly financed and controlled by the government, giving it access to the software and hardware used in the contest. The Smartmatic machines were Venezuela’s first experience with electronic voting . . .”

      I suppose that if you want to ignore a company’s history of corruption, you might also want to hire Bernie Madoff as your financial advisor.

        1. I should add, where does the Washington Post ever discuss these things. They don’t and that is why Anonymous above is ignorant of the facts. He prefers fantasy.

  2. “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

    – Joseph Goebbels

    “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

    – William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987

    Human beings have existed for 300,000 years.

    Viruses were the precursors of cells.

    All of a sudden, human beings are all going to die from viruses?

    Me thinks not.

    The vulnerable must beware.

    “Viruses were not only the probable precursors of the first cells, but they have helped to shape and build the genomes of all species, including humans.”

    “We are the invaders of the viral world, not vice versa.”

    – Karin Moelling, University of Zurich, Switzerland – Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics in Berlin, Germany

    “You can run but you can’t hide.”

    – Anonymous

    Mankind might as well face the music and get it over with.

  3. There is no better place to see through the covid propaganda than the CDC website.

    The CDC clearly states that it is counting deaths by covid19 without any testing for covid having occurred.

    Just to make that even worse, the CDC provides no data on how many deaths it is attributing to covid where no tests were ever performed.

    Furthermore, the lockdowns and the destruction of the economy is causing, and will cause, far more deaths due to heart disease, cancer, etc., than would have occurred had there been no lockdowns and destruction of the economy.

    Now we have winter approaching:

    “Dark Winter” – Millions Of Americans Are Expected To Lose Their Homes”

    The alleged “cure” is far deadlier than the alleged disease.

    1. One peice of data I am having difficulty getting – which is supposed to be coming from CDC is the current running deaths per day, month, years as compared to prior years averages.

      In early may – AFTER the C19 peak deaths, 2020 was to that point running a few percent BELOW the prior 4 year average.

      This is important – people die all the time – nearly 8000 people die in the US everyday.
      Have total deaths overall RISEN or FALLEN – and how have the patterns changed.

      You cite factors that increase deaths by cancer and heart disease. So what has changed in the overall trend of death rates.

      If the overall death rate has actually increased by 1000/day – that would SEEM to indicate that Covid deaths are on top of all other deaths.
      But if deaths from cancer and heart disease have increased by 2000/day – they Covid deaths are merely replacing other normal deaths.

      The vast majority of C19 deaths are in people who are near death – who were going to die within the next few months.

      These deaths though sad were occuring regardless.

        1. Based on what ?

          Are you saying we are on track to have had approximately 2.84M total deaths through to the end of November – rather than the approx. 2.658 that would have been the norm based on the past 4 years average ?

          The total number of purpoted C19 Deaths is meaningless, without context.

          Are C19 deaths in addition to other deaths or in replacement of other deaths ?

          This is extremely important – because our policy responses to C19 also result in increased deaths.

      1. False, the vast majority of the federal government is a massive self serving sinecure for the left.

  4. “Actually, Trump just sucked at the job of being president”

    Did not start any new wars – the last president to acheive that was Jimmy Carter.

    Did 50% better economically than either Bush or Obama,

    There are things I disagree with Trump on, but he is inarguably the best president in the 21st century.

    1. Donald and I learned the constitutional issues when we lived across the hall at New York Military Academy under the tutelage of Col. Kane — a fine civics teacher.

      Too bad that Civics doesn’t have fine teachers in the curriculum that no longer is taught or respected.

    2. “Did 50% better economically than either Bush or Obama,”

      False claim, even at it’s most basic level of comparing Obama to Bush…

      However I’m used to seeing false claims, sweeping generalizations, lack of critical thinking, and delusional logic in your posts, John. But A+ for consistency.

      1. “False claim, even at it’s most basic level of comparing Obama to Bush…”

        It is stuff like this that destroy’s your credibility.

        Average growth under Bush was a bit over 2.0%,
        Under Obama was 1.8%.

        Trump brags that his economy was better than it actually was – as did Obama and Bush.
        Trumps economy was not as good as Clinton’s or Reagans or the 20th century average – but it was the best in the 21st century.

        “However I’m used to seeing”
        Who cares what you are “used to”.

        FACTS, Logic reason.

        “false claims,”
        Then you should be able to demonstrate that.

        “sweeping generalizations,”
        Yes, I use sweeping generalizations all the time.
        If false they should be trivially disprovable.
        Your inability to do so enhances their credibilty.

        “lack of critical thinking,”
        I have seen no evidence that you know what critical thinking is.

        “delusional logic”
        Again something you should be able to demonstrate.
        Yet, you have not.

    3. Trump did not do 50% better than Obama. You make these wild claims without substantiating them.

      1. The average growth rate during the Obama administration was 1.8%, Through 2019 it was over 2.5% under Trump.

        We still do not know what the rate through the end of 2020 will be – though it appears likely that 2020 as a whole will be very close to zero growth.

        The economy grew from 14.5T to 19.5T in 8 years under Obama.
        it grew from 19.5T to 21.5 under 3 years of Trump – and likely the same 21.5 under 4 years

        Do the math.

        1. “We still do not know what the rate through the end of 2020 will be – though it appears likely that 2020 as a whole will be very close to zero growth. . . . The economy grew from 14.5T to 19.5T in 8 years under Obama.
          it grew from 19.5T to 21.5 under 3 years of Trump – and likely the same 21.5 under 4 years

          Do the math.”

          Not the data I would have selected to prove that “Trump outperformed Obama by 50%”, but they are your numbers.

          19.5 – 14.5 = 5, 5/8 = .625 Trillion Dollars per quarter average increase in GDP per quarter

          21.5 – 19.5 = 2, 2/4 = .5 Trillion Dollars per quarter average increase in GDP per quarter

          .625/.5 = 1.25 or 125 %

          Obama’s average increase in GDP per quarter over the entire 8 years of his administration was 25% greater than Trumps average increase in GDP per quarter over the Trump administration (three years actual data plus 1 year projected by you) – according to your numbers.

  5. “Voters, not lawyers, choose the President. Ballots, not briefs, decide elections,”

    Actually false – and the obvious flaw in the decision.

    The law determines how elections are conducted. Failing to follow the law renders all else meaningless.

    1. A fraudulent Will is invalid. A fraudulent contract is invald. A fraudulent election is invalid.

      1. Judge’s Brann’s argument is brutally false. The authority of government – his authority comes from trust in the results of the election.
        When the process can not be trusted ALL voters are disenfranchised.

        The burden on Trump is two fold, He must prove that SOME invalid votes were counted – that is trivial. That always occurs.
        And he must show that the failure to follow election laws made it possible that large numbers of invalid votes were counted.

        A process failure disenfranchises ALL voters.

        It is not Trump’s challenge that harms legitimate voters. It was the failure to follow the laws.

        Judge Brann is blaming the police for catching a thief, because the owner left his door opened.

        The responsibility for the lack of trust in this election rests with those who failed to abide by the election laws.

      2. 2 people were arrested for election fraud in PA, probably similar numbers in other states. There hasn’t been any evidence of significant election fraud, only stories using hearsay.

        1. Again the laws of the states have not been followed.

          I would note that the two people CONVICTED in PA for election fraud in 2020 were election officials from Philadelphia and responsible for hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes being counted.

  6. Dr. Anthony Fauci has been nominated as Time’s Person of the Year. So if Trump’s administration did such a piss poor job handling Covid, and Tony Fauci was the chief “scientist” advising the administration’s response, why is the job Fauci did being praised and lauded by the idiots in Hollywood and the Media while Trump is being trashed? Does that follow any logical understanding other than how utterly sycophantically stupid leftists are?

    1. The Nats honored Dr. Fauci by having him throw out the first pitch. Humiliatingly, Dr. Fauci nearly threw the ball into the dugout. He said he misjudged the distance he needed to throw the ball. Really? He ‘misjudged’ the distance? A distance that has been the same for what, 100 years? We know everything we need to know about the fraud Dr. Tony Fauci really is just by watching how unprepared and wrong (about the distance) he was tossing out that embarrassingly bad first pitch.

  7. The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history.

    The co-conspirators are:

    Kevin Clinesmith, Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,

    James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic,

    Sally Yates, James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell,

    Sir Richard Dearlove, Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud,

    Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary,

    Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch,

    Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,

    Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg et al.

    1. And yet, once again, in the face of such brazen criminality and wrong doing, absolutely nothing will happen to anyone of the bad actors.

      ‘Sidney Powell built a case in three weeks while John Durham can’t figure anything out in three years.’ ~Emerald Robinson

      ‘We don’t have a Department of Justice. We have a Bureau of Selective Prosecution.’

      ‘Does anyone know if AG Bill Barr is still alive?’

  8. Pennsylvania State Legislature Files Resolution to Dispute Statewide 2020 Election Results…

    With mounting evidence of election fraud now visible, members of the Pennsylvania legislature have drafted a joint resolution [SEE HERE] to overturn election results, reverse the previous state certification, and the sponsors promise they will take it to the Supreme Court if necessary.

    1. “Urges the Secretary of the Commonwealth and the Governor to withdraw or vacate the certification of presidential electors and to delay certification of results in other statewide electoral contests voted on at the 2020 General Election”

      I hope they realize that that means certification of their own election as state representatives would be delayed. The legislative term for PA state legislators elected on Nov. 3 starts on Dec. 1. Just how are they planning to deal with the fact that there would be no elected state legislature in PA come Dec. 1 if the votes aren’t certified? (H/T to Mike Dunford:

      1. Suddenly you are worried about the proper function of government? Democrats created this problem. They cheated and that becomes more obvious every day.

        I don’t know that the dispute in PA involves their own election. It seems we will have to wait and see just like we will have to wait and see whether Trump can travel that hard uphill road to victory. But until now you had no concern for the election process so perhaps you are becoming more aware.

        You asked for proof and now proof is flowing in. You should be happy.

        1. Even CNN is now upset to realize Trump that has a possible path to victory. Perhaps a preference cascade is building. You are right; lots of evidence is gushing in and he is looking more like a winner.

          1. The right is waking up. Gradually more people are unaccepting of an election where Democrat cheating so obviously influenced the results. The bulk of good people will hopefully open their eyes wide to the riots and recognize that it isn’t America that is bad rather it is the left that wishes to destroy everything good in this country.The left has worked to push the ideas of tribalism and racism where it barely exists. The left has tried to destroy our families, individual freedom and culture for leftist power depends on fealty where family, individualism and religion get in the way.

        2. “You asked for proof and now proof is flowing in.”

          Too bad the courts massively disagree with that, ay?

          1. Ultimately, there is only one court that counts, The Supreme Court.

            A simpleton like you never thought of that.

            1. The ultimate court is not the Supreme Court – it is the people.

              It is irrelevant who is innaugurated in 2021. Absent broad confidence of the american people in the results the election has no legitimacy and Biden is impotent.

              It is highly unlikely this gets better for democrats.

              1. “The ultimate court is not the Supreme Court – it is the people.”

                We are talking about a specific election and its immediate results.

                The ultimate court is the Supreme Court.

                1. No, the ultimate court is the people.

                  This is quite important – and it is what is wrong with many of the decisions thus Far.

                  Candidate Trump has no right to a lawful election – that right – that meta-right belongs to the people.

                  The courts so far have fixated on Trump and pretended they are defending legitimate votes.

                  But if the election was not conducted lawfully – they are defending lawlessness – and they are at odds with the very voters they claim to be protecting.

                  The legitimacy of government, the legitimacy of the courts rests on elections.

                  This was one of the major problems with Bush V. Gore. It was obvious that what was going on was wrong, but the constitution did not and can not address that – because the courts, the constitution, the government all rest of free and trustworthy elections.

                  The lawlessness in this election undermines the foundations of legitimate government – including the courts.

                  1. “No, the ultimate court is the people.”

                    John, when you extend yourself that far out you have divorced your idea from the discussion at hand. Most of the time the ultimate court is the army which decides what it wants and acts accordingly. We can go further. The ultimate court is time for each time period will have a new “court”

                    Regarding the discussion, the ultimate court is The Supreme Court.

                    1. I am not extending that far out.

                      What I am stating is a foundational principle.

                      Our declaration of independence states that government exists solely by the consent of the governed.

                      In East Germany in 1989 we saw exactly what happened when that consent was withdrawn – even a totalitarian state collapses when people cease to accept it.

                      No the Army is NOT the ultimate court.

                      Absolutely tyranical governments can hold power for a long time – controlling media, the military, the courts, etc – so long as a sufficiently large portion of people cower and kowtow.

                      But it is rare for an army to be willing to go to war with its own citizens.

                      Right now do you think that the police ? The US Army would act forcefully against a large body of non-violent MAGA protestors ?
                      We saw armed lockdown protestors in May move into state capitols.
                      What do you think would occur today if the same thing occured and they “occupied” several state capitals ?

                      Do you think the police would attempt to remove them ?
                      Do you think that the national guard would ?
                      Do you think that the Military would ?

                      But no government can stand when even a substantial minority of people no longer trust it.

                      I am not issuing a call to arms. I am stating a fact. One that does not care about ideology.

                      I do not think we are quite there yet. But I think we are getting scarily close.

                    2. “I am not extending that far out.”

                      John, you chose your point in time, not the time in the context of the argument

                      “Our declaration of independence states”

                      …And Jefferson talks about revolution. That is where armies come in. I think the context of the discussion precludes anything past the Supreme Court. You are free to differ.

                      “But it is rare for an army to be willing to go to war with its own citizens.”

                      Look at Thailand, Turkey, Egypt etc.

                      Your other fear is justified. The Democrats raised the ante with Antifa and BLM along with cheating in the Presidential election. Those not in agreement might very well raise the ante as well. We had one Civil War which proves it is possible.

                    3. You seem to be missing my meaning.

                      The point of the declaration is that the legitimacy of government comes from the consent of the governed.

                      NORMALLY that is through elections.

                      When we do not have confidence in elections – there is no consent.

                      You mention armies – absolutely tyrants with armies behind them can government with strong oposition – but even that is limited.

                      Further do you really expect the US army or national guard to take up arms against US Citizens ?

                      If we were talking an Antifa Riot with looting and arson absolutely.

                      If we are talking about armed but otherwise non-violent citizens occupying a state capitol ? That is much iffier.

                      I am not saying that is where we are – but we are headed that way.

                      I am also deeply concerned that worse is possible.

                      The left has spent more than 12 years laughably ranting about the threat of right wing violence.

                      But we are fast approaching the point at which it is possible.

                      There is an excellent Baltimore Sun editorial noting that the left MUST change – or there will be another Trump – bigger and Badder.

                      Maybe not – but there will be something.

                      Obama said – elections have consequences. So does lack of faith in the integrity of elections. This is a very dangerous path.

                      When you can not trust elections the options are all not good.

                      One possible response is force – as noted a rise of armed resistance.
                      Another posibility is what we saw when Reid torpedo’d the fillibuster.

                      Either there is real inquiry into this election, and consequences for the fraud, or republicans can do the same in the future.

                      The GOP took back most of the seats in CA they lost in 2018.
                      The 2018 losses were entirely the consequence of changes in CA law that legalized ballot harvesting.

                      In 2020 The GOP in CA did the same.

                      Elsewhere in the country ballot harvesting is illegal.

                      Of course numerous elections actions that occured in 2020 are also illegal.

                      Republicans have more integrity overall than democrats. But not alot more integrity.

                      Either our election laws get followed both in Blue Cities and Red towns – or they do not in blue cites and red towns.

                      There is nothing Democrats did in 2020 that Republicans can not do even better in 2022.

                      And the risk is actually quite low. What are Democrats going to do if Republicans ALSO engage in large scale mailin election fraud ?

                      Demand an investigation ?

                      To be clear I am NOT making recomendations to the GOP – not to use force, and not to match democrats in election fraud.

                      What I am pointing out – what the declaration points out is that elections have consequences – and rigged elections have consequences too.

                      I do not know that the courts will grasp this. But there is a serious constitutional crisis here. the MSM can ignore this, the courts can pretend that they see no fraud or that the remedy for that fraud is too draconian, or that there is just not enough proof.

                      But it is NOT Trump or the Trump campaign they need to make happy. It is the tens of millions of voters who do not trust this election.

                      There is not a good outcome if their concerns can not be addressed.

                      The RIGHT response was for the courts BEFORE the election to demand that state governments follow the law.

                      After this gets harder. Again – the court cases on this election are not about the Trump campaign – they are about the 47% of people who think that this election involved large scale fraud. The courts MUST answer THEIR questions. Blowing them off likely ends very badly.

                      That does not require ruling in Trump’s favor – the actual facts determined by thorough inquiry should drive the action of the courts.

                      The courts can not stick their heads in the sand. over 100 Million people are watching.

                      And Democrats and the courts do not grasp that they are making the US look like Russia, or Venezuela or all the illegitimate regimes we criticize.

                    4. John, I got your meaning but in context the “end” can be drawn, SCOTUS or the end is infinite. I chose SCOTUS.

                    5. Ultimately we do not get to choose – other than for ourselves.

                      Nor does SCOTUS and that is the point of the language of the declaration.

                      We defer to government, the law, the courts even SCOTUS so long as we trust them.

                      As government loses our Trust it loses its legitimacy.

                      The consequences of a government legitimacy crisis are unpredictable.

                      Roberts is terrified of the court becoming politicized – and there is a real danger their – though he fails to grasp that it is the left that has driven that.

                      The more politicized the court appears they less trust we have in it, and that is very bad.

                      But the court can also be lawless and that is far more damaging than politicized – though there is significant overlap.

                      We have many bad laws – and where those bad laws are unconstitutional – we should nullify them because they are unconstitutional.

                      But outside of that the courts must impose all laws – reading them narrowly and as they are written – whether they are good laws or bad.

                      And the courts must require government to follow those laws – whether good or bad – so long as they are constitutional.

                      That is the requirements for “the rule of law, not man”.

                      Men can fix bad law. We can not fix lawlessness.

                      The decisions of SCOTUS must follow the constitution first, and the law second, and nothing else.
                      Regardless of politics, regardless of personal views of right and wrong.

                      Otherwise government itself has no legitimacy.

                      You prefer that SCOTUS is “the end”.

                      That is ONLY true if SCOTUS follows the constitution and the law.

                      When they fail to – the final check on lawless government is breached and who knows what the end will be.

                      There are infinite possibilities – none of them good.
                      And many involving violence and bloodshed.

                      One of the arguments I have made here repeatedly on this issue that JF and others on the left are completely ignoring is that if the failure to follow the law that we saw is allowed to stand – then what precludes republicans from doing the same in 2022 or 2024 ?

                      I can trivially figure out how I can personally completely screw up the next election without much int eh way of resources, if I am no more constrained by the law than PA democrats in 2020.

                      If I can do it – people far less scruplous than I can. Further, democrats have established that the ends justify the means, if the courts determine that laws need not be followed – there is no reason for republicans to follow them in 2022.

                    6. “You prefer that SCOTUS is “the end”.”

                      No SCOTUS is one of many endpoints but in the discussion at hand when taken in context SCOTUS will have the final answer. Yes there will be elections in the future and the country might even turn more dictatorial. There could even be a revolution. Alternatively the Democrats could be defeated and the party even disbanded. Those are a few of the myriad of things that might happen, but no tangible action can be accurately predicted in the present except that SCOTUS will choose whether to accept things as they are or change things.

                      ” there is no reason for republicans to follow them in 2022.”

                      Free societies with time become less free except when considerable effort is expended. Your attitude is to look at how the people will react. That is what was said when Obama was running and those supporting freedom chose to vote for those closest to their view points rather than who would slow or reverse the trend. Obama won and that led to a dangerous deep state and a media that doesn’t do its job. You believe that will incentivize the American people to vote differently. They did and Trump won but in this election despite widespread support for Trump he lost. The election was stolen.

                      Cheating occurred and you think that the cheating will be reversed by the other side. Perhaps but if that is what you are relying on then you are looking for a dictatorship because eventually neither side is acting democratically so some type of dictatorship will replace all the democratic forces.

                    7. Please do not tell me what I think- though you do a better job than those on the left
                      it is still logical error.

                      While I share many of your views, I have entirely different focus.

                      I strongly suspect Trump would have won had the law been followed. But suspect is not know.

                      I care more about whether the law was followed than whether it changed the outcome.

                      That puts me at odds with the courts thus far.

                      Trump is getting hammered by the courts – not for the reasons the left is claiming, but because the courts standard is that the claim must demonstrate that a different outcome would have resulted. That is near impossible to do. It is trivial for Judges to say – even if you prove your 181 points – you have not proven a different outcome so “dismissed” – and that is what is occuring.

                      I want all allegations of lawlessness investigated – regardless of whether they might change the outcome.

                      I am particularly demanding that the failure of the government to follow and enforce their own rules must be addressed – regardless of the effect.

                      I am concerned about peoples trust in the outcome.

                      The left does not understand the damage they keep doing to the country when they push to win at any cost.

                      The collusion delusion and russian interferance nonsense legitimize the skepticism those on the right have over this election.

                      If left wing nuts bought the ludicrous russia nonsense for 4 years – why should those on the right accept the results of this election when there is plenty of evidence of fraud.

                      And why should anyone trust essentially the same people who sold the collusion delusion to count the votes in the election ?

                    8. “Please do not tell me what I think-”

                      My statement should have been written and interpreted as, based on what you write “Your attitude ” seems to “to look at how the people will react.”

                      I think we are in agreement as to all the other points you made in your response. I believe I am a bit more pragmatic and think more in terms of human lifespan limitations than you. There is nothing wrong with your point of view except if one needs all 4 engines not to crash.

                    9. I am not looking for conflict with you.

                      We are in more agreement than disagreement and most of our disagreements are about oppinions or predictions not underlying facts.

                      I beleive “Anonymous” and JF have attacked my Covid and Election predictions.

                      They have both lied about my predictions and even if that were not true failed to grasp that credibility (or lack) regarding predictions are confined to to predictions. They have nothing to do with integrity or credibility regarding factual statements.

                      I am perfectly OK with being wrong about my predictions. I do not consider myself very good at predictions.
                      That said I have done far better on Covid and the election than the “experts”
                      I find that shocking. How is it that I am doing better regarding politics and elections, as well as epidemics than the “experts”.
                      I am not expert at any of these – I am just good with facts and logic.

                      That is pretty damning to “the experts”.

                    10. We have no significant conflict. Just keep the term pragmatic in the back of your mind.

                      “I beleive “Anonymous” and JF have attacked my Covid and Election predictions.”

                      They are both ignorant screwballs. Neither is able to make a cogent argument in favor of their beliefs. There was nothing wrong with your predictions. They were no worse than anyone else’s and they were based on fact and logic instead of politics and stupidity. Your facts were of high quality and you were consistent.

                    11. They are screwballs, and sometimes it is pleasurable to point that out.

                      I would prefer a real debate.
                      I would prefer one with someone from the left who was actually competent.
                      But there are so few.

                      But exposing the lunacy of idiots is a second choice.

          2. So reality is decided by a few courts ?

            The ultimate audience for the evidence is not the courts.

            It is the 52% of people who beleive allegations of election fraud require scrutiny.
            It is the 47% who beleive there was significant fraud.

            They are not going away.

            “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”
            Declaration of Independence.

            We do that through elections – when elections become untrustworthy the process shifts to other means.
            If people are denied legitmate means, then eventuially they can legitimately resort to violence.

    2. “But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote;…”

    3. “[M]embers of the Pennsylvania legislature have drafted a joint resolution [SEE HERE] to overturn election results . . .”

      Good for them!

      Their Resolution does a masterful job of laying out the evidence for mistakes and fraud, and of citing the laws that were violated.

  9. I guess even those Trump fought with are cooperating with Trump. They are probably afraid of the havoc a Biden Presidency will bring.

    Mexico’s president again declines to recognize Biden win. Of course the Chinese congratulated Biden a man who they have been doing business with for years.

    “Lopez Obrador, who has repeatedly accused opponents of electoral fraud over the years, again referred to the 2006 Mexican presidential election by way of justifying his stance.

    Lopez Obrador insists he was robbed in 2006. His use of that example in defending his stance on Biden…”

    1. The Deep Deep State brought the CIA foreign assassination program home to deploy against JFK who promised, “I will splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the wind.”

      The Deep Deep State brought Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic home from Venezuela to deploy against DJT who promised to “drain the swamp.”

    1. Yeah I don’t see why turley thinks this was a surprising blow…..rational basis…is enough….the fact is read the unposted facts from the fact keepers….raw deaths are down……..we have no clue how deadly covid is… can’t keep people from worshipping their mystery the face of such bullcrap. Stats.

  10. Pennsylvania State Senator Doug Mastriano, a Republican, said Friday that the GOP-controlled state legislature will make a bid to reclaim its power to appoint the state’s electors to the Electoral College, saying they could start the process on Monday, Nov. 30.

    Mastriano told War Room that he has been in communication with Republican Pennsylvania House and Senate members to reclaim their constitutional authority from the secretary of state’s office.


    1. The constitution grants the power over federal elections to the state legislators, and the congress respectively.

  11. “Federal Appeals Courts Throws-Out Trump Case”

    That means on to SCOTUS.

    Turley is concerned about his reputation and therefore concerned about fair use (copyright infringement). Peter Shill AKA Paint Chips and dozens of other names along with many different anonymous icons doesn’t care about his own reputation or the destruction of the reputation of others so he continues to post articles that way exceed “fair use”. That is the type of guy he is. No concerns for the rights of others. Pretty disgraceful. What he believes tracks the way he acts. Disgraceful.

    1. Allan had a lot of comments deleted for exceeding fair use. Don’t put it all on Peter. Other people have comments deleted for outright plagiarism, where they don’t even credit the true author.

    1. Law is not about science.

      Rights are not about science.

      The left is not about science.

      The “experts” have been wrong about “the science” regarding Covid since the start.

      1. And yet Tony Fauci is being lauded and praised by the Left as some kind of hero. Sickening.

        1. I do not have a fundimental problem with Faucci.

          I have a problem with the power given to Faucci and other “experts”.

          We have myriads of sources of information regarding Covid right now. Faucci is one of those.

          We more so than any prior era have all that we need to make decisions for ourselves.

          Listen to Faucci, Listen to someone else – gather information weigh it and make your own choices. That is what individual liberty means.
          I get to decide what cloths I wear, what car I drive, what House I rent or buy.

          Each of us has the information we need to make choices regarding wearing masks, eating at resturaunts, going to church, the theater, ….
          We are capable of running our own lives.

          There is nothing wrong with “experts” like Faucci providing they advice. There is everything wrong with being ordered how to live by them.

        1. “Wrongness about Covid 19 is a subject in which you have tremendous expertise, John.”

          I would put my record regarding C19 against pretty much all the experts the left fawns over.

          If as you say I have been wrong about C19 – you should easily be able to demonstrate that.

    1. That’s for the rubes and suckers David, along with not legislating from the bench. Like the GOP being deficit hawks, that only applies to acts by Democrats.

    2. What, to capriciously and willfully violate an individual’s 1st amendment right? It doesn’t exist.

      1. Sure Olly, emergency steps to control a pandemic are even listed in the dictionary as examples of “capricious”, right after number of players allowed for beach volleyball and right before maximum allowable length of mutton chops by men over 65.

        1. There is evidence that C19 hates religious worshipers more than grocery shoppers ? Or protestors ?

          If not then the states actions were by definition capricious.

          Regardless, the violated the 1st amendment.

  12. 17.

    I conclude with high confidence that the election 2020 data were altered n all battleground states resulting in a hundreds of thousands of votes that were cast for President Trump to be transferred to

    Vice President Biden.

    These alterations were the result of systemic and widespread exploitable vulnerabilities in DVS, Scytl/SOE Software and Smartmatic systems that enabled operators to achieve the desired results.In my

    view, the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible.

    Pursuant to 28 U.S.S. 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

    EXECUTED ON: November25,2020By:

    Navid Keshavarz-Nia, Ph.D., Ed.D

    1. Do you gest?…the facts are even if there is no PhD….whatevere it was was enough….for Texas to bualk. Texas should sue…for itself under the promised Republican form of govt clause….and full faith and credit clause…….texas should sue and thereby get original jurisdiction and standing….to have bad system voting tossed out……we dont have a republic when states can cheat…and other states dont have to play along and give them full faith and credit. The honest states can succeed….what they going to do kill us? All the more reason to demand full and fair elections.. Texas should sue

      Or succeed…

      But it can’t act all stuff tufff and do nothing!….. texas has standing and original jurisdiction…lets see if the tuffff guys bother to act.
      They won’t because everyone is all talk and no action. All hat and no water.

      Paralyzed…read the constitution and act….states have standing…art 3 has jurisdiction…get off your rumps!….

  13. “…as an expert in this, I think it’s impossible to verify the validity of about 100,000 to 120,000 votes.”

    “…the notion of a recount in a forensically destructive process doesn’t work very well.”

    “…what I saw there was a chain of custody in all cases that was broken.”

    “I personally observed USB cards being uploaded to voting machines by the voting machines warehouse supervisor on multiple occasions.”

    ” I brought it to the attention of the Deputy Sheriff…and I brought it to the attention of the Clerk of Elections…I objected and I said this person was not being observed, he’s not part of the process, that I can see,

    and he’s walking in with baggies, which we have pictures of, and he was sticking these USBs into the machines. I personally witnessed, that happened over 24 times.”

    – Data Scientist Testimony

  14. Roberts is lying once again to make believe that the Supreme Court is above the fray and is just calling balls and strikes they each justice sees it. He is a political hack who has done tremendous harm to the reputation of the supreme court.

Comments are closed.