Churches like St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan, seen here, would argue that they should not be discriminated against when it comes to Covid restrictions. And they shouldn’t but for the fact that indoor services lend themselves more naturally to … — Churches like St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan, seen here, would argue that they should not be discriminated against when it comes to Covid restrictions. And they shouldn’t but for the fact that indoor services lend themselves more naturally to contagion than does a liquor-store run. Photograph by Peter K. Burian.

Right church, wrong pew: The Supremes and 'freedom of religion'

December 1, 2020

As a practicing Roman Catholic, i can’t tell you how upset I was with the dreadful United States Supreme Court decision to allow services in New York houses of worship to go on unrestricted.

The court ruled it was a violation of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion when, after all, bike shops weren’t restricted. Here’s Justice Jimmy Stewart, uh, Neil M. Gorsuch in the concurring opinion:

“It is time — past time — to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues and mosques.”

Uh, Neil, I don’t think people who go into liquor stores are sitting in pews for an hour taking part in a service. I think the liquor store or bike shop is a 10-minute visit, tops.

The Supreme Court and the executioner’s song

July 2, 2015

The Supreme Court has upheld a drug used in Oklahoma executions, dismissing the claim of three death-row inmates that it causes excruciating pain.

Basically, the majority of the Supremes said the inmates should’ve come up with an alternative drug – which Justice Sonia Sotomayor thought was nutty.

“Petitioners contend that Oklahoma’s current protocol is a barbarous method of punishment — the chemical equivalent of being burned alive,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. ...

Gay marriage v. states’ rights

April 29, 2015

Gay marriage is once again before the U.S. Supreme Court, and depending on what the Court decides, it could become the law of the land.

Opponents have taken a new tactic. It’s not about whether or not gays should marry but whether the Court or the states should decide this.

Trust me: It’s about whether or not gays should marry, and invoking states’ rights in this situation here smacks of the Dred Scott Decision of 1857, in which the Court ruled 7-2 that just because you’re a slave living in a free state doesn’t make you free.

Right now, you might be gay and married in New York but you sure as hell ain’t gay and married, in, say, Tennessee.

And that’s absurd. There are certain things in which there must be uniformity of the law, otherwise what’s to stop a heterosexual couple’s marriage from being ignored by a state? ...