Justice Alito gives Keynote speech to Federalist Society (1 Viewer)

wardorican

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
3,567
Reaction score
4,028
Age
41
Location
Ft. Lauderdale
Offline

I'll post the youtube video later of the whole speech, I haven't watched it. I did hear some commentary about how unbecoming this was and ultra partisan and had a lot of grievances. I may want to get into the grievances later.

Before I get poisoned by anything, I want to ask something.

Have justices in the past given speeches like this? Is there anything wrong with it?

I'm most interested in what our lawyer friends have to say about this first.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
3,076
Reaction score
2,245
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline

I'll post the youtube video later of the whole speech, I haven't watched it. I did hear some commentary about how unbecoming this was and ultra partisan and had a lot of grievances. I may want to get into the grievances later.

Before I get poisoned by anything, I want to ask something.

Have justices in the past given speeches like this? Is there anything wrong with it?

I'm most interested in what our lawyer friends have to say about this first.

I'm definitely not an expert in this, but while I think it's unusual, I want to say it's not unprecedented. I think it was maybe Clarence Thomas who made a speech similar to this and touched on some pretty sensitive topics. That was several years ago though, so I'm a bit hazy on how that went. Seems pretty rare though.

I do think there are some equal protection concerns that I think are legitimate. I don't like churches being singled out. If churches are forced to not assemble for health reasons, those same rules should apply to businesses. The only exception to those restrictions should be the emergency services and critical infrastructure needs. Just treat the groups equally and I'm good.
 

efil4

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
1,746
Age
50
Location
Covington, LA
Offline
I just read that. Interesting read. Im no attorney, but he seems pained by the COVID 19 restriction and First Amendment.

I mean the states made the rules regarding COVID restrictions, not Congress.

And that was done because our Commander in Chief was missing in action.
 

efil4

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
1,746
Age
50
Location
Covington, LA
Offline
I'm definitely not an expert in this, but while I think it's unusual, I want to say it's not unprecedented. I think it was maybe Clarence Thomas who made a speech similar to this and touched on some pretty sensitive topics. That was several years ago though, so I'm a bit hazy on how that went. Seems pretty rare though.

I do think there are some equal protection concerns that I think are legitimate. I don't like churches being singled out. If churches are forced to not assemble for health reasons, those same rules should apply to businesses. The only exception to those restrictions should be the emergency services and critical infrastructure needs. Just treat the groups equally and I'm good.

The States enacted the COVID restrictions.

Furthermore, Churches werent singled out because they were Churches per se. Capacity of building would be the issue- if a church has 1000 sq ft for its parishioners, and routinely packs the pews, it would stand to reason that setting a restriction on capacity during a pandemic would be wise. No one is restricting ones right to practice their religion. If the church burned down tomorrow, they would still be practicing ( enter religion here ) from home or temporary place. If the temporary place only held 50% of previous Church, is the "fire" now impinging on the right to practice religion? No.

The appeals were to persons "for the greater good". Unfortunately, many have devolved into self-rightious indignation. Humanity is a forgotten trait all of a sudden in America.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
3,076
Reaction score
2,245
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
The States enacted the COVID restrictions.

Furthermore, Churches werent singled out because they were Churches per se. Capacity of building would be the issue- if a church has 1000 sq ft for its parishioners, and routinely packs the pews, it would stand to reason that setting a restriction on capacity during a pandemic would be wise. No one is restricting ones right to practice their religion. If the church burned down tomorrow, they would still be practicing ( enter religion here ) from home or temporary place. If the temporary place only held 50% of previous Church, is the "fire" now impinging on the right to practice religion? No.

The appeals were to persons "for the greater good". Unfortunately, many have devolved into self-rightious indignation. Humanity is a forgotten trait all of a sudden in America.

From what I understand, the churches intended to practice social distancing and wearing masks and adhering to whatever the current rules are, but it's been a moving target and businesses had a different set of rules than churches. As long as the rules are enforced evenly, I don't have an issue.

Fwiw, I'm a former minister and from my perspective, I'd be having services via zoom until we reasonable get a handle on this virus. I'd hate to be responsible for a member of my group to die from Covid. I think churches should adhere to the rules as long as the rules are applied equally.

And while states enacted their own covid rules, they still can't violate the Constituion via those orders.
 

UncleTrvlingJim

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
1,191
Reaction score
2,735
Location
Virginia
Offline
I think there is a point that I can agree on to some degree, on this. For example, many cities allowed protests to go on this summer as a fundamental need and expression. I would argue that going to church is equally important as protesting from a fundamental rights and human expression perspective.

Now there are obvious differences in risks (indoors vs. outdoors), masks/no masks, etc. But ultimately many states have allowed one set of fundamental first amendment rights to overrule Covid restrictions while not allowing religious gatherings.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom