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.

Here is the order: ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, NEW YORK v. ANDREW M. CUOMO, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK

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

  1. “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.”

    What does it mean, “not currently subject to the most severe limits”? Would that be if an EO were issued that restricted gun ownership to only one pistol where the magazine could hold only 7 rounds wouldn’t be the most severe limit because it wouldn’t be a total ban on gun ownership which would be the most extreme?

  2. Religions are belief systems based on spirits and invisible beings. Atheism rejects the existence of these unprovable beings and is therefore not a religion.

    Maybe you’re just not that familiar with the English language Rhodes.

    1. “Atheism rejects the existence of these unprovable beings”

      Correct. So, by your own admission, atheism is a belief system based on the non-existence of spirits and invisible beings.

      All religions are a unified system of beliefs and practices about life and the world relative to the supernatural.

      Keyword: “relative”. So, a belief system that rejects the existence of supernatural beings is identical to a belief system that embraces the existence of supernatural beings.

      Apparently you don’t understand the proper definition of “relative” when used as an adjective. Or for that matter the definition of “belief”.

      Atheism is just another “ism”, like Hinduism, Catholicism, or Buddhism.

      Atheists are just standard run of the mill materialists who are terrified of anything that threatens their myopic materialist paradigm, or worldview. Whether that be ghosts, UFO’s, or what they perceive to be supernatural “unprovable beings”, doesn’t matter.

      1. There is no “system” of beliefs in atheism. There’s only one belief. You imagine a system of belief where none exists. Atheism is not a religion. You imagine religion where it doesn’t exist.

        religion
        noun
        1a: the state of a religious
        b(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural
        b(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
        2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
        3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
        4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

        1. “There is no “system” of beliefs in atheism. There’s only one belief.”

          One belief is enough. But you are completely wrong about there only being one belief associated with the religion of atheism.

          The belief system of atheism is clearly explained here:

          https://www.atheists.org/about/our-vision/

          “Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws”

          There’s the system, Joe.

          Atheists/Materialists also perceive, and therefore treat, science as a religion.

          Which is very comical. So you atheists actually have two intertwining belief systems.

          This quote from Terence McKenna sums that up perfectly.

          “Your science is going to be shown up for what it is, nothing more than a pleasant metaphor usefully extrapolated into the production of toys for healthy children. That’s what science is good for. It is not some meta-theory at whose feet every point of view from astrology to acupressure to channeling need be laid to have the hand of science announce thumbs up or thumbs down.”

          – Terence McKenna

          A perfect example is how the “Global Warming” mantra was changed to the “Climate Change” mantra, when all of the dire predictions about global warming failed to occur.

          All atheists are also pseudo-skeptics. What’s really funny is that pseudo-skeptics exactly mirror the mindset of religious fundamentalists. Basically you have the same mindset as Primitive Baptists. Who are Biblical literalists that are incapable of understanding metaphor or allegory.

          1. I’m not Joe.

            Most atheists don’t belong to the organization you linked to.

            If I linked to a Christian organization and said that all Christians believe what that organization says, you’d rightly respond that the organization only speaks for itself, not for all Christians. Same with the American Atheists organization you linked to.

            1. It does not matter – science does not have all the answers.

              That is not a statement of beleif – it is one of fact.

              Where science does not provide answers, anything we chose is faith. Even chosing not to beleive is still beleif. The beleif that there is nothing more is still an act of faith.

        2. Of course atheism is a religion. Even the beleif there is no god is something that must be accepted on faith.

          Just as one can not prove god exists, one can not prove god does not exist.

          I would further note that there is plenty of evidence in the behavior of the universe that there is intelligence behind it.

          Even DNA is essentially a biological computer program for life. As vast as the universe is and as numerous as the stars and planets – we still do not have enough time since the begining of time to have formed even simple proteins by random chance.

          There are things we do not know – and likely never will know that defy chance.

          You are free to beleive that there is some scientific explanation for the design of proteins of DNA – but ultimately that is a BELIEF – a FAITH.

          1. “[W]e still do not have enough time since the begining of time to have formed even simple proteins by random chance.”

            Chance versus “intelligent design” is a false alternative. The third, correct, choice is causality. (And causality is not a matter of faith.)

            “Just as one can not prove god exists, one can not prove god does not exist.”

            You’re perverting the onus of proof.

            “Of course atheism is a religion.”

            It is bizarre to call that which is a rejection of theism (“atheism”), a type of theism. “Atheism” is a *negative* position: “a” = “not,” + “theism.” It’s like saying that I am “a-gremlinism,” i.e., I reject a belief in gremlins. Such a position tells you nothing about what I do believe; only what I don’t believe.

            One might argue against atheism and even morally condemn it. But it is intellectually irresponsible to describe it inaccurately.

            Finally, I have a serious (as opposed to a rhetorical) question for religionists who believe that “atheism is a religion.” What do you achieve by classifying atheism as a type of religion? Why do you want to elevate that which you reject and regard as bad (atheism), into the “vaunted” status of that which you accept and regard as good (religion)? Doing that seems to contradict your own premises and goals.

            1. Religion: “4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”
              Faith: “b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof”

              Sam, based on the above Merriam Webster definitions do you wish to modify or explain your point even though I have some agreement with both sides of this coin?

              When I talk to my atheist friends, not agnostics, they do not act as if it is a negative position. They act as if it is the neutral position.

            2. Magic words are not answers – you are dealing with science.

              BTW Causality does not work backwards.

              It is easily arguable that advanced organisms will strongly favor even direct improvements towards outcomes that are beneficial.

              But the there is insufficient time in the universe to develop simple amino acids – much less complex life forms that can direct evolution.

              Causaulity is not magical.

              I would further note that even within the observable world of complex organisms we see the opposite of what you appear to be claiming – evolution slows as complexity rises.

              BTW I am not specifically arguing a position. I am noting evidence such as DNA – which is the biological equivalent of a computer program – something we have never seen without intelligence.

              “You’re perverting the onus of proof.”

              Logic error. There is no “burden of proof” either way. Science has never been able to explain everything.
              Unless it can there is no logical difference between proving there is something else and proving there isn’t.

              Further it is a common logical, scientific and mathematical technique to invert the argument.
              If you can not prove something is true – can you prove it is false ? Or can you prove that it can not not be true ?
              or any number of other logical approaches to spiral in on what is true.

              The question of some outside driving intelligence is not resolvable either way.

              It is no less an element of faith to beleive that science will eventually explain everything, than it is to beleive in god.

              Both require you to beleive what you can not prove.

              No it is not “Bizzarre”. Your error is that you fixate on theism. You completely miss that the argument is not about god, it is about faith.

              Those who do not beleive in a god, STILL must have faith in things not proven. They must have faith that science will eventually explain what it can not explain today. Given the infinite scope of they unknown that is no different than beleif in a god.

              No it is not like “gremlinism”.

              Regardless, you are arguing a false binary. Rejecting a beleif absent proof is ALSO beleif.

              “But it is intellectually irresponsible to describe it inaccurately.”
              And how Am I doing that ? Atheism is the BELEIF there is no god. You can make the terms more nebulous if you want it still ends up being belief in something that can not be proven.

              There is nothing wrong with that – except pretending that it is somehow scientific.

              When science can not answer a question that is not the same as proving the answer is no.

              I would note that my argument applies to far more than just god.

              There are myriads of fields of scientific inquiry that we will eventually have answers to, but that even scientists BELEIVE or DISBELEIVE prior to reaching those answers.

              All that is unique about theism is that it is unlikely we will ever have an answer.

              As to your last argument – that is for the most part completely irrelevant to me.

              I have no problems with atheism – as a beleif. But presuming that it is a fact requires proof. If Atheism is not a beleif then it is self contradictory. If you accept only what is proven, you face the problem that what is proven is dwarfed by what is not.

              How do you address what is not proven ? There are infinite things that exist and yet we do not understand, and certaintly can not prove much about. They still exist. If you only accept what is proven – you are rejecting much of what exists.

              1. Atheism is not a belief there is no god, it is a rejection of belief in beings not detectable by our senses. For example, atheist do not accept that there is a devil or a monster under John Say’s bed.

                He is free to believe whatever he wants, and he demonstrates that guiding principle regularly.

                1. Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
                  https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

                  This is the anti-American Left today. It’s not enough that they don’t share the same beliefs as Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. They have to actively reject those beliefs and often through the unjust force of law.

                    1. I used to be an agnostic-leaning conservative atheist. I never considered using the law to violate their 1st amendment right. Quite the opposite. I considered religion necessary for the security of rights, even though I didn’t believe in God.

                    2. Hey doofus, you can’t even define your own terms. Bloviating is your forte. 🤣 well, along with lying and being an domestic enemy. Tell us more about the Senate Intel report and Garland. Bwahahahahaha!

                  1. “This is the anti-American Left today.”

                    Olly, please, don’t go there.

                    There are individuals who are passionately pro-America, pro-individualist, and undiluted capitalists — who are also atheists.

                    1. There are individuals who are passionately pro-America, pro-individualist, and undiluted capitalists — who are also atheists.

                      Young,
                      That was the point I was making, using myself as an example.

                    2. Olly: “Young,
                      That was the point I was making, using myself as an example.”

                      Oh. Never mind.

                      Sam (not “Young”)

                2. “Atheism is not a belief there is no god, it is a rejection of belief in beings not detectable by our senses. For example, atheist do not accept that there is a devil or a monster under John Say’s bed.”

                  You fixate on “beings” – Buddhism is a religion – Buddhism does not involve beleive in beings not detectable by our senses.

                  Though I would note that is a bizzare standard – I can not detect an electron with my senses. Must of physics is beyond the ability of anyone’s senses to detect.

                  Regardless, you have not addressed all that science can not prove.

                  Science can not prove that you exist. How is it that you do not know that you are not a brain in a Jar – as in the matrix, that your entire existance is not just a dream ?

                  Science can not prove morality – there is no scientific prove that rape is evil – that anything is evil, that evil exists.

                  Science can not prove logic or mathematics. Both are axiomatic to science – logic and math must be assumed to be true do engage in science. While much in logic and math are provable – both logic and math ultimately rest on axioms too – things we must assume to be true, because we can not prove them. Ultimately even science rests on faith.

                  “He is free to believe whatever he wants”
                  As are we all. What distinguishes some of us is that we grasp that ultimately everything rests on belief.

                  In arguably some beleifs are more plausible than others, but they are still beliefs.

                3. Atheism: : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods __Merriam Webster

            3. My problem with your argument – and much of the left is your lack of self awareness.

              You claim to accept only what can be proven – and yet what is proven is dwarfed by what is not.
              You fail to grasp that you accept as much on faith as those who beleive in gremlin’s. You are just insufficiently self aware to grasp that.

              This is an enormous logical flaw and over more than a century has given rise to myriads of errors.
              science is the process of discovery. All advances in science required skepticism regarding what was purportedly proven and beleif that there was a better answer.

              1. That’s false. While all scientific knowledge is subject to repeated proof – being repeatable is the basis for acceptance – scientific advancement builds on previous success and makes no sense in isolation. John can wallow in doubt as justification for his believing what fits his politics, but he’s transparent in what guides him, and it’s not science or logic.

                1. “That’s false.”
                  What is false ? Naked assertion and dangling object.

                  “While all scientific knowledge is subject to repeated proof – being repeatable is the basis for acceptance”
                  I would note that we are STILL dealing with beleif. Repeatability is NOT proof. We beleive because of past experrience that tomorow when I let go of a ball it will fall, because it has in the past. Everything that we can prove ultimately rests on things that we believe – in logic, math, science these are often called axioms (or postulates, or theories), they are things we can not prove, but accept as true.

                  “scientific advancement builds on previous success”
                  Correct.

                  “and makes no sense in isolation.”
                  Interjection of an irrelevant oppinion.

                  “John can wallow in doubt as justification for his believing what fits his politics, but he’s transparent in what guides him, and it’s not science or logic.”
                  A naked and very nonspecific claim without any evidence to support it.

                  For someone who claims to be guided by science – and therefore math and logic, you are pretty ignorant of the requirements to prove anything.

      2. Yup. State the ideology without the dogma or particulars and it would be difficult to distinguish between them. Ditto for Wokeism. Atheists and critical theorists are not ‘secular’, and they believe plenty of things that exist only within the confines of their minds, too.

  3. More legislating from the bench by the “conservative” justices. Cant wait for the one holding the Merrick Garland Seat to further codify the relative value of businesses and their exemptions next to those dealings with invisible beings.

    Granting special rights to the religious is an establishment of religion.

    1. “Granting special rights to the religious is an establishment of religion.”

      Is it? I thought the religious establishment was having its rights taken away. I don’t think Joe cares as long as the bars are open and wi-fi is available.

    2. Please enumerate those special rights that were given above and beyond what is written in the Bill of Rights? And be specific.

  4. It would be interesting to see Cuomo’s face if he was held personally responsible for the legal bill on this. He would probably have to sell his Emmy.

    These politicians are telling everyone to stay home for the holidays while they travel to states not restrictive as theirs.

  5. Has the media asked Joe Biden for his thoughts about this opinion? Joe Biden, devout practicing Catholic, what say you?

  6. This is more a check on a governor making edicts according to his personal whims and effort to look all powerful

    1. Let us hope this is the beginning before these dems destroy the entire hospitality industry and many more lives than CCF could ever touch.

  7. Gorsuch: “… 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?”

    What an idiot. People CONGREGATE in churches. In large numbers. People don’t congregate in liquor stores or bike shops.or any of the other places mentioned.

    But if you have the votes you don’t have to make sense. Just type out some garbage and sign it F. U.

    1. What an idiot – you are.

      The number of people who aggregate is not the same as how they congregate. The science is also ambiguous, to say the least (perhaps a matter of elitist faith?) on the real transmission mechanisms and probabilities. If 50,000 people under the age of 50 “conmgregate”, what is the hard data on how many, with no pre-existing conditions, will die from Covid? The Covid predictive modeling has been wildly inaccurate. A comprehensive risk assessment has never been conducted nor influenced policy. The opportuntity costs of current policy passes unexamined?

      Nope. It’s the deep state, the Progressives, the MSM, the oligopolies who are lifting the middle digit. In the process, they have, as others noted, employed fear is their primary line of argument/influence. And it’s working – in the short run.

      We all get it – you are afraid and are willing (by all appearances) to allow the systematic implementation of coercive, largely unconstitutional government policies (“rules”) to assuage your fears. I know many people like you. You are the board monitor sort who tolerantly weathers unacceptable points-of-view, for a while, and then finally swoops in self justified retribution to cancel accounts and access. You are the “scientists.” The virtuous – based on some unknown standard. The contemptuous coffee klatch.

        1. So what – there are infinite numbers of variables associated with risks.

          I would further note many of us are tired of “XXX is linked” stories.

          Either actually prove cause and effect or go away. Innuendo and bad implication and bad statistics are not evidence.
          Especially from people who argue that math is racist and 2 + 2 = 5

          We are each unqiue individuals and face unique circumstances. Only we can decide what risks we will take for ourselves.

      1. PJ – most of the information you say does not exist – actually does. But that only makes your argument stronger.

        We have known the risk curve of C19 before it left China. Yet, we have pretended and STILL pretend the risk to all is equal.
        That is absolute rubbish.

        Basing policy on that faux equality is even more garbage. One of the many reasons for leaving choices to individuals is because each individual is unique and each is better at confronting their own risk/reward criteria than “experts”

        We have shutdown outdoor events during the day – despite the evidence that outdoor daytime transmission is either nil or very near nil.
        Worse we refuse to allow kids and teens and college students to engage in those activities when the risk specifically to them is nil, so kids in outdoor daylight activities have nil^2 chances of bad results.

        Accross the board it is self evident that each individual must weigh their own risks.

        Choices that are nearly risk free for children and young adults are much more dangerous as you get older.

        If the goal was to save lives – our “experts” did pretty much the worst things possible.

        And in many cases the evidence existed to know that.

  8. What’s striking to me over the years, is that the progressive block of the court never veers from each other to show independence of thought. They march in lockstep, just as their Democrat masters in the legislative branch.

    1. After hearing some of the Justices speak, I learned that they believe they have an innate sense of right and wrong that has little to do with the Constitution. It’s more about how they feel and whether or not they can twist the Constitution so their feelings can be expressed. They might be good judges in lower courts where one sometimes desires leeway in criminal decisions but they make lousy judges on Constitutional issues.

  9. Does the Supreme Court allow humans to sit in an audience in their courtroom during oral arguments. If so, what restrictions?
    Is there a sign which says No Muslims Allowed hung on the wall?

  10. Great Ruling finally striking back at the DEM Governors and the MSM and other Lockdown/ Socialist Groups who are dictating/power hungry trying to limit our Freedoms. It is nice to see Dictator Cuomo smacked down. Hopefully the frst of many rulings against the Lockdown crowds.

    As respects to Justice Roberts, it is great we now have 5 Conservative and 3 Liberals and One Never Trumper Roberts – look for more 5 to 4.

    1. Art- I’ve been wondering that for months. Is it blackmail or bowel movements that inform his thinking? From Sullivan to Roberts something seems very wrong in DC courts.

      1. The problem in the courts is not limited to DC. Nor is it unfortunately limited to democrats.

        Far too many in the judicial system beleive they get to decide issues and policy, that they get to decide right and wrong.

        They do not. Their role is to apply the law and the constitution – as written.

        We can correct the constitution when it is wrong – we can amend it or start over with a new one.

        We can correct bad laws – we can repeal them or rewrite them.

        We can not fix a court system where judges take it on themselves at any level to decide what the law SHOULD be.

    2. Few people on here write as well as Art Deco which is sometimes an education.
      Sorosphere? Curious word…which led me to his quaint blog “When We Reach the City”.

      Cue “I Vow to Thee My Country“

  11. Liberals are pro-choice except when it comes to people choosing YHWH, Jesus Christ or Allah. Fancy that they claim truth to power when rioting, arson and killing life in the developing baby but God help you if you disagree with them.
    Then they wage a jihad and gather people for a beheading

  12. Here is what really matters.

    “COVID19 – Evidence Of Global Fraud”

    https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/17/covid19-evidence-of-global-fraud/

    “When scientists from the US CDC “infected” various cells with the novel virus they noted the following:

    “We examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549) [lung celles], human liver cells (HUH7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T), in addition to Vero E6 and Vero CCL81 [monkey cells]…No cytopathic effect was observed in any of the cell lines except in Vero cells [monkey cells]…HUH7.0 and 293T cells showed only modest viral replication and A549 cells [human lung tissue cells] were incompatible with SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

    The CDC did not observe any CPE in human cells. They saw no evidence that this alleged virus caused any human illness. Nor did this supposed human virus show any notable replication in human cells, suggesting human to human infection would be impossible.”

    People die every year from Corona viruses, Rhino Viruses, flu viruses, bacteriological infections, and other viruses that are listed as “unknown”.

    But since the CDC and the WHO are by their own admission counting infections and subsequent deaths “with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19”, it is easy to create a fear based narrative. Which is exactly what they have done.

    They’re selling the sizzle without the steak. Which is clearly evidenced by the fact that even though the CDC admits that it is attributing deaths to Covid19 with no confirmatory testing for Covid19, the CDC provides no data delineating those deaths.

    Scared and stupid is no way to go through life. But fear makes people that are relatively intelligent act like idiots. This is a complete scam.

    Every time you get in a car your odds of being killed are far more likely than dying from a cold or flu virus.

    1. You’re quoting a non-peer-reviewed paper from early March, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7239045/

      The full paragraph –
      “As research is initiated to study and respond to SARS-CoV-2, information about cell lines and types susceptible to infection is needed. Therefore, we examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T), in addition to Vero E6 and Vero CCL81. We also examined an available big brown bat kidney cell line (EFK3B) for SARS-CoV-2 replication capacity. Each cell line was inoculated with at high MOI and examined 24 hours post infection (Figure 3A). No cytopathic effect was observed in any of the cell lines except in Vero cells which grew to >107 PFU at 24 hours post infection. In contrast, both HUH7.0 and 293T cells showed only modest viral replication and A549 cells were incompatible with SARS-CoV-2 infection. These results are consistent with previous susceptibility findings for SARS-CoV and suggest other common culture systems including MDCK, HeLa, HEP-2, MRC-5 cells, and embryonated eggs are unlikely to support SARS-CoV-2 replication (14–16). In addition, SARS-CoV-2 failed to replicate in the bat EFK3B cells which are susceptible to MERS-CoV. Together, the results indicate that SARS-CoV-2 maintain a similar profile to SARS-CoV in terms of susceptible cell lines.”

      Adenocarcinoma cells are a kind of cancer cell, and they can come from many glands, not just the lungs.

      Notice that your article omits “Each cell line was inoculated with at high MOI and examined 24 hours post infection,” and that the original article discusses what’s found over different time periods, so their selective quote is misleading. Notice that only 1 of the 9 authors works for the CDC, so the article you’re quoting can’t even get simple information correct.

      Notice that the authors of the original paper disagree with Iain Davis’s claim that “They saw no evidence that this alleged virus caused any human illness.” Notice that neither he nor you are trying to discuss this honestly.

      1. “ Notice that neither he nor you are trying to discuss this honestly.”

        We noticed how you failed to appreciate the value of pre-prints considering science is built on constructing studies, replicating them to determine which arguments are valid and which are discarded so as to evolve scientific inquiry

        We noticed how you got into the weeds when you pursued an Adenocarcinoma argument when the study was focused on SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequence and replication characteristics.

        We too noticed that there were numerous authors affiliated with the CDC as denoted on the link you provided

        Isolation and characterization of SARS-CoV-2 from the first US COVID-19 patient

        Jennifer Harcourt, Ph.D,1,* Azaibi Tamin, Ph.D,1,* Xiaoyan Lu,1 Shifaq Kamili,2 Senthil Kumar. Sakthivel,2 Janna Murray,2 Krista Queen, Ph.D.,1 Ying Tao, Ph.D.,1 Clinton R. Paden, Ph.D.,1 Jing Zhang,3 Yan Li,1 Anna Uehara, Ph.D.,4 Haibin Wang,3 Cynthia Goldsmith, Ph.D.,1 Hannah A. Bullock, Ph.D.,5 Lijuan Wang,5 Brett Whitaker,1 Brian Lynch,2 Rashi Gautam, Ph.D,1 Craig Schindewolf,6 Kumari G. Lokugamage, Ph.D,6 Dionna Scharton,7 Jessica A. Plante, Ph.D,7 Divya Mirchandani,6 Steven G. Widen, Ph.D.,8 Krishna Narayanan, Ph.D.,6 Shinji Makino, Ph.D.,6 Thomas G. Ksiazek, DVM, Ph.D,7,9 Kenneth S. Plante, Ph.D.,7 Scott C. Weaver, Ph.D.,6,7,9 Stephen Lindstrom, Ph.D,1 Suxiang Tong, Ph.D,1 Vineet D. Menachery, Ph.D,7,9,+ and Natalie J. Thornburg1,+
        Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer

        1Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
        2Eagle Contracting, Atlanta GA, USA
        3IHRC, Atlanta GA, USA
        4ORISE, Oak Ridge TN
        5Synergy America, Inc., Atlanta GA, USA
        6Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Institute for Human Infection and Immunity, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston TX, USA
        7World Reference Center for Emerging Viruses and Arboviruses, Institute for Human Infection and Immunity, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston TX, USA
        8Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Institute for Human Infection and Immunity, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston TX, USA
        9Department of Pathology, Institute for Human Infection and Immunity, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston TX, USA

        1. I appreciate the value of pre-prints. I also understand the difference between studies that are peer-reviewed and those that aren’t. It still hasn’t been accepted for publication, 8 months later.

          I should have said that the CDC is only 1 of the 9 employers, and the list shows that most of the authors don’t work for the CDC.

          I didn’t pursue an adenocarcinoma argument. I only pointed out that Mr. Davis inserted information that isn’t correct.

          Notice how you’re silent about the authors of the original paper disagreeing with Iain Davis’s claim that “They saw no evidence that this alleged virus caused any human illness.”

          1. We noticed you are the fool who engaged Rhodes stupid comment.
            We noticed you assume every preprint must be peer reviewed to have validity. The conclusions of the authors were entirely correct in their pursuit of genomic sequencing and nothing more needs to be gained by peer reviewing it
            We noticed too you fail to appreciate many peer review articles are revoked

            Notice how dishonest you are?
            Probably not

            1. Who is the “we” you keep referring to? Do you have multiple personalities? That would be consistent with you “noticing” things that exist only in your imagination.

              1. Got a preprint link to share with us? Even if it involved 1 author from the CDC characterizing adenocarcinoma in sheeple like ewe?

          2. Peer review is only little better than nothing.

            The actual standard of science is REPRODUCABLE.

            It is irrelevant how many experts like your thesis.

            If your work can not be reproduced it has no value.

            Properly done statistical analysis will tell us the probability that some result can be replicated.

            But we should not be surprised in an era where Math is racist, that statistics are often done poorly.

            Withing the past several years we have seen myriads of examples of established scientific thesis being flushed down the toilet – because they do not reproduce.

            Much of this started with a challenge to psychological priming. Regardless, a substantial portion fo the “science” of the past 60+ years has proven unreproducable. Psychology is rewriting its own foundations as major works from the 50’s and 60’s are proving to be garbage.

            But the same is happening in myriads of other fields – physics, health, heart disease, anthropology, all over the sciences much modern science does not reproduce.

            The shift in science from publishing works and having others reproduce them of rebut them was gradually replaced by peer review.
            And the result has been disaster for science and for the credibility of science.

      2. You could be correct. Odd that during this entire ordeal I only know of two people who passed away from Covid. Anecdotal? Sure. The fear mongering, however, is real and it isn’t anecdotal. The statistics, like votes, are often manufactured (i.e., there is no authoritative data). An easy observable is the wildly inaccurate perdictive analytic modeling the powerful few used/use to justify their unapproved (legislatively) edicts.

        And then there are the outliers – like the Chinese medical professionals who simply disappeared when they challenged the CCP. But, yes, you and the elites? You are “science based”. Your problem is that too much water has passed under the MSM/elitist/WHO/CDC bridge. Too many fabrications. Too many overt, if unpunished, violations of law. You aren’t trusted. Worst of all? Millions view such people as lacking any integrity. Untrustworthy. And such an environment, your orthodoxy, cannot survive.

        The Left (pssst…the folks hoping to assume end-to-end power) don’t even believe in science – their epistomology and ideology don’t allow for that. Science, for them, is simply another arrow in the power quiver; culturally based; language to be deconstructed. but nevertheless fully aligned with the corporatitsts who line their pockets.

        Interesting times.

        1. Amen.

          It is actually disturbing that so many things that should have been easily determinable have taken over a year to establish.

          The extreme propensity of this disease to target the old has been well known from the begining, after that it was also obvious that the death rates were milder in lower latitudes.

          It should have been a no brainer to test for things like Vitamin D back in February.

          Yet it has only been in the past month that good studies over Vitamin D have come out – and the results are amazing.
          Normal Vitamin D levels reduce your risk of getting C19 by 77-82% – that is almost as effective as a vaccine.
          Normal Vitamin D Levels result in milder cases and lower mortality – for those who get C19.
          Administering vitamin D analogs to seriously Ill people has a stronger beneficial effect than any other treatment we currently have – than HCQ, than Steriods, than Remdsivir, than Monoclonal antibodies.

          This is something we could have determined in February 2020. Yet the “experts” ignored other experts who were begging us to look at this.

          More recently studies have determined that the MMR vacine appears to be nearly as effective in preventing C19 as the new vacines.

          Again this is a thesis that developed (and was subsequently) by looking at patterns. Infants under age 1 appear to be more susceptible to C19 than children from 1-20. Asking why, lead to positing that immunizations against childhood diseases might confer immunity against C19. Thus far it strongly appears that it is the Mumps portion of the MMR vaccine that confers C19 immunity. It also appears that getting the mumps as a child confers some immunity but that the mumps vaccine is significantly more effective.

          Had this been noted many months ago we could have had a vaccine immediately. Even now as we prepare C19 vaccines, we should be ramping up MMR vaccines and giving those to the elderly NOW. Those vaccines have a long track record of safety and well know risks and constraints.

          But the “Experts” that run our public policy have actively thwarted the most effective means to solve problems – free people and free markets.

          Look at what happened with PPE and Hand Sanitizer and ventalators ? All “shortages” were extremely short lived. Today hand sanitizer, and PPE are not only available by the gazillion – but you can have your own personalized PPE.

          I would further note that the Pfyser and Moderna vaccines that are the first to reach the market are mRNA vaccines that BioHackers were telling us in April they could produce in 4 weeks. That they are 100% safe, but their effectiveness might only be 50/50.

          That was in April.

          Time and again it is the “experts” that have been the impediments to dealing with C19 effectively,

          We have seen throught the past 9 months numerous spikes in the number of people testing positive.
          But since early june death rates ahve been pretty much constant at 1000/day. That is about the same rate as a bad flu.
          In the US nearly 8000 people die of something every day.
          Further since the death rate spikes in April, the evidence appears to be that C19 deaths are just replacing other deaths.
          That the people dying from C19 are people who were going to die within the next 9 months of something else regardless.

          There is much much more example of failure by “experts”. There are now over 150 studies worldwide demonstrating that HCQ is effective at preventing C19 and at reducing its severity. We KNOW have better treatments than HCQ, regardless, we could have reduced C19 deaths by about 20% by wide use of HCQ.

  13. Once again the “Liberals ” miss the point. The point is not the restrictions per se’. The point is the incredibly arbitrary categorization of “Essential ” entities. Seems those that entities that create tax revenue have a much better shot at being ” Essential”. The Framers went out of their way to address religious freedoms. We need to also

    1. It would seem that if your salary is supporting you or your family, than that should be the only criteria for a job be considered essential. Dems hate independence.

      1. Independent salary and work? That is for conservatives. They want to work or they don’t get paid. Liberals don’t mind being on the dole. Just look at the Liberal’s strongest supporters, the teachers union. Close the schools while paying the teachers a salary and when the schools are reopened brainwash the kids.

    2. You’re expecting liberals to set impersonal criteria which treat like cases like in the service of goals which are commonly agreed on and stated in advance. George McGovern is dead, Nat Hentoff is dead, and Alan Dershowitz is regarded as a turncoat. In our time, the criteria will be defined by non-liberals or the criteria will be protean and work to advance the interests of sketchy outfits on the patronage of liberal politicians. There is no other state-of-the-world except in the odd municipality where the local Democratic caucus is run by people who aren’t frauds. In an era where a school administrator is fired by a unanimous vote for taking exception in a private forum to Burn Loot and Murder, there are few areas where the local Democratic caucus isn’t run by frauds.

  14. What’s next for this Supreme Court of Faith? Upholding the irrational faith of Jehovah’s Witnesses to refuse a medically necessary blood transfusion to save the life of their child thereby reversing established precedent to the contrary?

    1. Jeffrey, the master of the non-sequitur, again misses the point. Please explain how jumping to the Jahova Witnesses refusing child care equates with allowing a liquor store to have eased standards vis a vis a church.

      When you allow liquor stores to remain open and you limit religious houses of worship you cross the line. This has been the problem with the left, they will countenance protest marches, rioting and Biden rallies but then demand you not invite your family to dinner. The left will not charge looters but will threaten you with arrest if you have 9 people rather than 8 at your dinner. They call you a fascist and then tell you to call the cops on your neighbors if they have one too many people over for a HOLIDAY. This is the country that Jeffrey wants.

      Now, as night follows day, Jeffrey will come on here and say that since my name isn’t on the comment he will not reply. Then after that he will take the names of people who do complain and him and his ilk will try to get them fired.

      1. “When you allow liquor stores to remain open and you limit religious houses of worship you cross the line.”

        Well, maybe. But there is a difference in the way we typically use liquor stores and houses of worship. If patrons of liquor stores sat shoulder to shoulder for several hours at a time then maybe the liquor stores should be restricted too.

        1. Maybe next we should be monitoring how that liquor gets used. After your purchase you should be required that you show proof that you are drinking alone and stay alone for a period of time after consumption so the govt. knows you are able to make approved choices once again.

          1. Jim22, also don’t forget to pass laws that allow for those killed by drunk drivers to sue the liquor stores and companies, same as what Biden administration plans to do to gun dealers and manufacturers. We must all bow to Biden and the Democrat-Socialist-Neocon-Lincoln Lawyers.

        2. Bogus or dishonest (take your pick) strawman. It’s not a binary. Many religious institutions adapted to masks and separation – you know, the “hard science” proposed as the antidote by ellites who gather in large shoulder to shoulder dinner parties.

          1. If the only rights you have are those that the majority agree are good conduct – then you have no rights at all.

            A right explicitly means the right to act contrary to the will or judgement of the majority – A right is the right to be wrong, even egregiously wrong -so long as you do not directly harm others.

    2. What’s next for this Supreme Court? If Roberts is going to be a regular dissenter, maybe we should start talking about the Thomas Court. And someone really should find out if CJ John Roberts is THE John Roberts listed in the Epstein flight logs.

  15. Why didn’t inform this blog where you stand on the issue? I suppose you would rather not take a side lest you alienate any subscribers. You are not merely a court reporter; you are a legal analyst! So give us your opinion….

    1. Religious privilege! There aren’t supposed to be any but, hey, kill your parishioners and super spread all you like because God is on your side. A wise man once said, God gave us a brain, he expects us to use it! Not in the USA, not if the church objects.

      1. How long will you abide by the restrictions?
        Let’s do an easy one.
        How long will you wear a mask?
        1 year?
        5 years?
        10 years?
        25 years?

      2. “Religious privilege! There aren’t supposed to be any”

        The Free Exercise Clause in the Bill of Rights grants the “privilege” of free exercise of religion and that “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

        BTW, Atheism is a belief system, and therefore it is a form of religion. So if you are an atheist, you also have the privilege to embrace that belief system.

        So, the statist POS named Cuomo has no right to interfere with the free exercise of any religion, including Catholicism or Atheism.

        1. Atheism doesn’t have any system of beliefs. It involves just one belief, “I don’t believe in god.” It’s not a form of religion.

          1. “…doesn’t have any system of beliefs”

            Atheism or atheists? Cuz, ya know, it all started from a single point!

Leave a Reply