...Global law firms Sidley Austin and Troutman Sanders, along with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, sent a letter today to Dane County Executive Joe Parisi and Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway on behalf of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Madison explaining that the City and County’s May 22 public health order that capped in-person worship at just 50 people is discriminatory and targets the Catholic Church for selective enforcement. Under the order, shopping malls, bars, restaurants, spas, gyms, salons, museums, movie theaters, community centers, bowling alleys, skating rinks, trampoline parks and more are not subject to the 50-person cap. Madison’s mayor has also announced that public protests are not subject to government restrictions at all. Madison/Dane County threatened to send government officials to Catholic Masses to find out how many people are there and impose $1000 fines if too many people came to church. The letter explains that Madison/Dane County’s actions violate the First Amendment and the Wisconsin Constitution....Think I'm kidding about the Mayor-ette of Madistan being un-hinged? Check out this blogsite.
Never forget that Annie Gaylor's "Freedom From Religion" activist bunch is based in Madison, as is the University of Wisconsin's flagship campus, long considered the CPUSA's finest undergrad school.
SCOTUS has already ruled on a similar case in California, in favor of the restrictions imposed by the Jesuit-educated Governor out there. CJ Roberts once again demonstrated his complete disdain for the Constitution--as he did with ObozoCare--so Sidley et.al. have an interesting battle ahead.
1) Bishop Hying is a good guy - I'm glad he's doing the right thing fighting this unjust order.
ReplyDelete2) I hope the next step is civil disobedience and refusal to comply.
3) I'm guessing that the Dane County judges aren't going to find anything wrong with that policy, but SCOWI will...
Depends on timing, Dave.....remember that Kelly goes out on 7/1 (8/1??) and Hagedorn likes him some Government, not rights of citizens.
ReplyDelete"CJ Roberts once again demonstrated his complete disdain for the Constitution..."
ReplyDeleteQuite the contrary. Chief Justice Roberts noted that California’s guidelines “appear consistent” with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment because “[s]imilar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time.” He wrote that dissimilar activities such as operating grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, are exempted or treated more leniently. According to him, these activities are dissimilar to religious gatherings because “people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods.” He concluded by stating that responding to the threat of COVID-19 – an “area[] fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties” – should be left to political officials, not an unelected federal judiciary.
Political officials, who in turn leave it with the so-called "experts" who are themselves fraught with "medical and scientific uncertainties" as well fraught with political bias, graft and corruption
ReplyDeleteAnony 7:31 knows full well that the only Constitutionally-protected activity is FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. Stores, banks, laundromats, etc. are not specifically listed in ANY Amendment.
ReplyDeleteRoberts pissed on the 1st Amendment, that's all there is.