Supreme Court’s Division on Lockdowns Causes Concern | Eastern NC Now

Scott Street writes for the Federalist about potential implications of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision.

ENCNow
Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the John Locke Foundation. The author of this post is Mitch Kokai.

    Scott Street writes for the Federalist about potential implications of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision.

  • Like numerous judges across the country for the past year, some justices on the U.S. Supreme Court appear unable to put aside their political views and question the legality of lockdown orders. That's apparent in last week's late-night decision in the ongoing battle between California's churches and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The order arose after Newsom ignored the Supreme Court's prior decision that found bans on indoor worshipping to violate the First Amendment.
  • Just one week after the Supreme Court issued that decision, Newsom's government issued a regional "stay at home" order that again banned all indoor church services during a sacred holiday season, but let grocery stores and large retailers like Costco and Best Buy stay open inside at 25 percent capacity. The order showed a shocking disregard for the law, particularly during the Holy Season and especially for a governor that has demanded complete fealty to his orders.
  • California must have known that it would be hauled back before the Supreme Court, and the court made it pay. Justice Neil Gorsuch's plurality opinion hammered that point, saying: "Recently, this Court made it abundantly clear that edicts like California's fail strict scrutiny and violate the Constitution ... Today's order should have been needless; the lower courts in these cases should have followed the extensive guidance this Court already gave."
  • Of course, one may expect such defiance from California politicians, whose state voted nearly two to one for Joe Biden over Donald Trump, but it is much scarier to see it come from three Supreme Court justices — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer — who discarded all respect for stare decisis and essentially accused their colleagues of killing people. ...
  • ... Sadly, Kagan's dissent reflects a larger failure by the legal community during the COVID-19 pandemic: a failure to exercise any independent judgment or critical thought in the face of the greatest assault on civil liberties in modern American history.

Go Back


Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published )
Enter Your Comment ( text only please )




Haley Makes Case for Protecting Women’s Sports John Locke Foundation Guest Editorial, Editorials, Op-Ed & Politics GOP Senator Suggests Impeaching Schumer


HbAD0

Latest Op-Ed & Politics

“I’m from America, 250 years ago we were way bigger than 6/1 dogs, and look at us thriving now.” Justin Gaethje pulls off an all time sports upset.
There are many people who overlook the brilliance of the US Constitution. They argue that it is outdated and unfit to adequately govern such a modern nation as ours in the 21st century.

HbAD1

"I plan to keep his counsel close until our paths cross again," JD Vance said on Thursday.
On Tuesday, Democratic Gov. Josh Stein signed an executive order creating the bipartisan Health Care Affordability Commission that he said will look at ways to make healthcare more affordable for North Carolinians.
"Margo’s Got Money Troubles" explores how financial desperation drives women to OnlyFans. That’s not empowering. It’s exploitative.

HbAD2

“They have never managed anything like this before, and it’s like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches coming out the sides."

HbAD3

 
 
Back to Top