Jerry Nadler Says Antifa Violence & Riots in Portland Are A Myth
David A. Cook CoffeeShop Weekly July 27, 2020
On Sunday Democratic House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler told a journalist that despite relevant reporting and videos, the violence in Portland by Antifa is a nothing more than a "myth" circulating only in Washington, D.C. So for your viewing pleasure, here are a few “myths” for you to view from Portland and Los Angeles.
Supreme Court Ruling Once Again Shows The Left's Hatred of Religious Freedom With The Help Of John Roberts
David A. Cook CoffeeShop Weekly July 26, 2020
John Roberts, has shown himself to be, in most recent times, the leading activist judge on the high court. No one on the court has overstepped their authority and trampled the constitution more in recent years than Roberts. Starting with his multiple rulings on Obama Care to his ruling on standards for abortion clinic doctors. His rulings, has shown him to be a rudderless judge, who is blown about by the winds of public opinion. His willingness to ignore the constitution is seen in this case as well.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court rejected a Nevada church's request to be subjected to the same COVID-19 restrictions that the state's casinos, restaurants, amusement parks, and other businesses must abide by. The Nevada law allows such businesses to operate at 50% of capacity with proper social distancing. However the Nevada law restricts houses of worship to only 50 people at a time regardless of their building capacity limits.
Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley appealed to the Supreme Court and requested an emergency injunction that would temporarily prohibit Nevada from enforcing the 50-person cap on religious gatherings, until their appeal to the 9th circuit is heard. Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley argued that the hard cap on religious gatherings was an unconstitutional violation of its parishioners’ First Amendment rights to express and exercise their beliefs.
Lawyers, representing the church, wrote in their filing with the court:
"The governor allows hundreds to thousands to assemble in pursuit of financial fortunes but only 50 to gather in pursuit of spiritual ones. That is unconstitutional"
Chief Justice John Roberts, in a cowardly move, sided with the liberal majority in denying the request without explanation. Three of the conservative judges on the court wrote strongly worded dissents. Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a dissent joined by Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh stating:
The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about the freedom to play craps or blackjack, to feed tokens into a slot machine, or to engage in any other game of chance. But the Governor of Nevada apparently has different priorities. Claiming virtually unbounded power to restrict constitutional rights during the COVID–19 pandemic, he has issued a directive that severely limits attendance at religious services. A church, synagogue, or mosque, regardless of its size, may not admit more than 50 persons, but casinos and certain other favored facilities may admit 50% of their maximum occupancy— and in the case of gigantic Las Vegas casinos, this means that thousands of patrons are allowed.
That Nevada would discriminate in favor of the powerful gaming industry and its employees may not come as a surprise, but this Court’s willingness to allow such discrimination is disappointing. We have a duty to defend the Constitution, and even a public health emergency does not absolve us of that responsibility.
Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley is a church located in rural Nevada. It wishes to host worship services for about 90 congregants, a figure that amounts to 50% of its fire-code capacity. In conducting these services, Calvary Chapel plans to take many precautions that go beyond anything that the State requires. In addition to asking congregants to adhere to proper social distancing protocols, it intends to cut the length of services in half. It also plans to require six feet of separation between families seated in the pews, to prohibit items from being passed among the congregation, to guide congregants to designated doorways along one-way paths, and to leave sufficient time between services so that the church can be sanitized. According to an infectious disease expert, these measures are “equal to or more extensive than those recommended by the CDC.
I would grant an injunction pending appeal. Calvary Chapel is very likely to succeed on its claim that the directive’s discriminatory treatment of houses of worship violates the First Amendment.
The idea that allowing Calvary Chapel to admit 90 worshipers presents a greater public health risk than allowing casinos to operate at 50% capacity is hard to swallow, and the State’s efforts to justify the discrimination are feeble. It notes that patrons at gaming tables are supposed to wear masks and that the service of food at casinos is now limited, but congregants in houses of worship are also required to wear masks, and they do not consume meals during services.
Judge Kavanaugh's dissent is equally pointed:
Under its current reopening plan, Nevada allows restaurants, bars, casinos, and gyms to grant entrance to up to 50% of their total occupancy limit—no matter how many people that may be. For example, a casino with a 500-person occupancy limit may let in up to 250 people. By contrast, places of worship may only take in a maximum of 50 people, without exception, regardless of the occupancy cap. So unlike a casino next door, a church with a 500-person occupancy limit may let in only 50 people, not 250 people. Nevada has offered no persuasive justification for that overt discrimination against places of worship.
To be clear, a State’s closing or reopening plan may subject religious organizations to the same limits as secular organizations. And in light of the devastating COVID–19 pandemic, those limits may be very strict. But a State may not impose strict limits on places of worship and looser limits on restaurants, bars, casinos, and gyms, at least without sufficient justification for the differential treatment of religion. As I will explain, Nevada has thus far failed to provide a sufficient justification, and its current reopening plan therefore violates the First Amendment.
I agree that courts should be very deferential to the States’ line-drawing in opening businesses and allowing certain activities during the pandemic. ... But COVID–19 is not a blank check for a State to discriminate against religious people, religious organizations, and religious services. There are certain constitutional red lines that a State may not cross even in a crisis. Those red lines include racial discrimination, religious discrimination, and content-based suppression of speech.
The Constitution “protects religious observers against unequal treatment.” Trinity Lutheran, 582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 6) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Nevada’s 50-person attendance cap on religious worship services puts praying at churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques on worse footing than eating at restaurants, drinking at bars, gambling at casinos, or biking at gyms. In other words, Nevada is discriminating against religion. And because the State has not offered a sufficient justification for doing so, that discrimination violates the First Amendment. I would grant the Church’s application for a temporary injunction. I respectfully dissent.
So the war on faith continues by those on the left. How much more needs to be said before people who look kindly upon the powers on the left will start to realize they have such animus towards the constitution and God in general. That these types of decisions only further emphasize the godlessness of the left, and there overall desire to do harm to our founding principles and the United States of America.