Stay on the highway and don't get off track. We are talking about a national health emergency with orders from the CDC, Surgeon General and the Corona Virus Taks Force to stay in place, practice social distancing and avoid large crowds. And a woman does NOT have SOLE Decision making rights over her body so you are wrong again.
Yup, that's what we are talking about, willingly giving up your rights due to an emergency health situation. Check out Ms. Whitmer's restrictions in Michigan, btw she is not empowered to make those rules, but you don't mind so it's OK. Not by me.
What she did in Michigan can be challenged in court since it is arbitrary and makes no sense, but general restrictions are not and would be upheld.
you told us you were playing basketball with friends during this... so don't pull that hypocritical shit here and blame everyone else for bullshit you did. you know fucking damn well the sup ct might not go along with a church shutdown... they could very well might examine the reasons for the infringement on religious rights. We saw this group protect religious rights against govt over reach just last year with the gay vs baker case. As I said. it hinge on the level of scrutiny they choose. You understand the differently levels of scrutiny framework, correct?
I played basketball with 2 friends the week of March 16th and that was the last time because the rules changed and group gatherings in my State were basically forbidden. So I followed the rules perfectly. You want to dance on the beach with your imaginary friends it is fine because they do not count for social distancing. I understand you are bitching about people who are told not to go to church services but can easily watch the service online from their home and still see their priest or reverand give the sermon or any other service online so there is no damage. Hundreds of clergy got on line and said the church is just a building, we can do the service online and still reach the parishoners. So you are bitching about something for nothing. gay v. Baker case is not even relevant here. Let me explain it to you like you were a child. EXPLAINING CONSTUTIONAL LAW TO A CHILD 101 (see Reynolds v. United States 1879) the Court concluded that people cannot excuse themselves from the law because of their religion. “Can a man excuse his [illegal] practices…because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances… State no say no can do religion, state never say that State say no can be in church with hundreds of people, state say no can gather in groups. Who else say that? President Trump, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx, Surgeon General, most Governors and Mayors... Churches around the country did online sermons for Easter including Pope and National Bascillica and numerous other denominations. Right to religion not infringed if you can still practice it. No right to practice it anyway you want. You have right to be Mormon but not polygomy (reynolds v. U.S.) You not know Supereme Court history or constitutional law so I forgive your ignorance. State say no can assemble due to national health emergency. Supreme Court not interested in bullshit challenges to government authority when most governors, the President, the CDC and Surgeon general ALL said to not gather in groups. Not a religious case but assembly case and every challenge would lose to a 1L arguing the other side. VIRTUAL SCHOOLING
I no longer believe you are a practicing attorney. No attorney would look at an off point constitutional law case from the 1800s and tell their client they know for sure how the court would rule and such an large infringement of peoples rights to practice religion... for instance... you can not receive communion over television. you are the child to pretend it is an open and shut case. 2. and you are now arguing bullshit about rules. you knew you were breaking social distancing rules at the time. you were implicitly bragging about using your own common sense.
haha jem has no argument.. i cited an old case to show you how old the case law had been established. Also what fucking client? there is no client because there is no case. and focus on the basketball when you have no other diarrhea to fall back on. I have a half court in the back yard loser and the rule was 10 or less back in mid march about 3.5 weeks or so ago and I followed it. you have no argument and every one here sees it..let it go Elsa
you cited a case from the 1800s. When just last year the govt decided the cake baker's religious rights were superior to the gov'ts attempt to enforce their laws "protecting" gay rights. your position that there is no argument...is prima facie ridiculous. Judges are people. They don't always weigh the facts vs laws the way you would or I would or the way any other person representing a plaintiff or defendant might think.