Once Again, A Supremes' Dissent Has The Better Argument -- On The Role Of Science, Not Religion -- In Lethal Pandemic Mitigation Efforts.

I am oft' fond of saying "to be clear. . ." as I review various court decisions here, but in this muddled mess of signing statements, disagreements and dissents, the Supremes' late Friday night California church rulings. . . are decidedly. . . UNCLEAR.

[The new "pro-organized-religion" wing of Gorsuch and Barrett did very little to impress upon us that they will just rule on the law as it has been understood for over a century -- rather than "speechifying" about matters not properly before them. But I suppose that is harmless dicta.] And. . . as my image at right suggests, during the pandemic of 1918, closing churches was considered a patriotic life saving duty, almost without exception. But among today's "greivance / mega-churchers"? Not so much.

In any event, these opinions and signing statements yield no clear majority, or any unified opinion, really -- on the overall outcome, since it is before the Supremes, in an interim posture, overall. Even the conservative wing splintered over whether California had done enough, on the "scientific record" to support its no singing portion. So, in the end, most of it goes back to the trial courts, for more evidence -- if the churches pursue it.

All that may happen (for now) is that churches may still gather indoors in California, at 25% capacity -- but may not sing or chant, while the appeals are sorted out. Of course, the churches may assert (if armed with new evidence in the trial courts) that the indoor crowded singing ban isn't being enforced on movie studio lots, with large musical numbers -- and choruses singing, for film or streaming -- in tight indoor spaces. I for one doubt the churches will find such evidence. [And I think it tells us a lot about the conservative wing of the Supremes, that they still believe 1940s style Hollywood musicals are being made, at all. In sum, they may be woefully out of touch. . . with many modern realities. But I digress.]

So, for now -- here's the bit, from the wise dissent (which appears at about the tenth full page of the opinions, as printed in a PDF). It will end up being the law, when the dust on all the appeals finally settles -- which is likely to be after 70 per cent of all of us have been vaccinated -- and the whole thing will be. . . moot.

. . .Justices of this Court are not scientists. Nor do we know much about public health policy. Yet today the Court displaces the judgments of experts about how to respond to a raging pandemic. The Court orders California to weaken its restrictions on public gatherings by making a special exception for worship services. The majority does so even though the State’s policies treat worship just as favorably as secular activities (including political assemblies) that, according to medical evidence, pose the same risk of COVID transmission. Under the Court’s injunction, the State must instead treat worship services like secular activities that pose a much lesser danger. That mandate defies our caselaw, exceeds our judicial role, and risks worsening the pandemic. . . .

Well-put. Onward, to hear the ice crunch below my Sorel-clad feet, as I walk -- on a very brisk minus five afternoon here. Grin.

नमस्ते