Five to Four

As many of you have probably heard or read by now, the U.S. Supreme Court just gave Religion a vote of confidence. Of course, for many of us, this comes as no surprise since we knew Ms. Amy Coney Barrett was going to be an influencing factor in church/state decisions.

However, what was surprising – and gratifying – is that Chief Justice John Roberts took a much more egalitarian approach to the issue. A good sign, hopefully, of things to come … although we should never get too confident.

The entire matter is addressed in this article.

Beyond the fact the decision favored the churches in this case, I found the overall reasoning lacking in so many ways. It was Justice Neil Gorsuch’s comments, in particular, that really stood out to me.

He noted that other businesses, such as bicycle repair shops, did not have similar restrictions and went on to say:  … “according to the Governor [of New York], it may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick up another bottle of wine or shop for a new bike.”

Does anyone else see the fallacy in this reasoning? How many people does it take to pick up a bottle of wine … or shop for a new bike? How many people might be in one of these businesses at any given time? 3? 4? Especially during the pandemic shutdown. From my perspective, it’s hard to imagine a liquor store or a bike shop ever having 25+ people on the premises at any one time – which is the lower end of the restricted number for church gatherings.

And this comment by the Rabbi involved in the case is also mind-boggling: “This landmark decision will ensure that religious practices and religious institutions will be protected from government edicts that do not treat religion with the respect demanded by the Constitution.”

DEMANDED BY THE CONSTITUTION??!!?

Finally, IMO, this remark by Chief Justice Roberts summed things up — and should have been the most compelling of all:

“It is a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic.”

Yet five justices of the Supreme Court did just that.

What Say You?

As most people know, the outcome of the recent presidential election isn’t really in doubt, yet Dear Leader continues to dispute the results.

No news there.

But the question becomes:  Will he … can he … succeed in his efforts? Or will he FINALLY go down in defeat?

According to Politico, in order for Trump to overcome election results, some unprecedented legal steps would be required.

• Republican-led legislatures in states Biden won would need to move to overturn their state’s popular vote and appoint a slate of Trump electors when the Electoral College meets on Dec. 14.
• Since such maneuvers would be certain to meet vetoes from Democratic governors, the lawmakers would also need to secure a legal determination that they hold the sole power to appoint electors — a disputed legal premise that has never been tested.

Both actions are considered long shots; however, as most of us know, Trump is desperate.

So what say you?

No sure? Perhaps try consulting your crystal ball. Or do a bit of ommmm and see what the universe says. Or … I know! Ask your Republican neighbor!

Or better yet, make an educated guess.

A Pardon for Trump

Yes, that was my immediate reaction. WHAT??!!?

But then I read this article …

Why Biden Should Pardon Trump

Here is the opening line:

If President-elect Joe Biden hopes to fulfill his pledge to unify the nation, he should do the unthinkable and pardon Donald Trump.

The article was written by Michael Conway, counsel for the House Judiciary Committee in the impeachment inquiry of President Richard Nixon in 1974. While I felt he made a couple of respectable points in his argument, I’m curious to know what my readers think.

BTW, there’s a “Quick Vote” option in the middle of the article if you want to share your POV and compare it with how others feel about the issue.

It’s Not Just The Mask

Consider the following scenarios that were recently printed in our local newspaper related to the spread of COVID-19:

1. Going to work when sick.
2. Not wearing face masks or not wearing them correctly.
3. Traveling to COVID-19 hot spots and bringing back the virus.
4. Sending children to school sick.
5. Attending large holiday parties where unmasked people engage in close contact activities like dancing, singing, and sharing food.
6. Gathering for in-person birthday parties with guests from other households.
7. Attending large prayer group sessions without following social distancing and masking guidelines.
8. Visiting grocery stores or other areas without practicing social distancing and wearing masks.
9. Joining poker games where people sit too close to each other.
10. Huddling too close together at bars to watch football games.

THINK PEOPLE!
These are clear examples of how this virus continues to spread.

********************

Recently, we considered ordering a to-go dinner from a local restaurant, but decided against it when we considered point #1. How many food handlers are working because they need the money, yet they know they are experiencing symptoms? Or how many cooks temporarily remove their masks because they’re uncomfortable to wear in a hot kitchen?

And how many of us have seen individuals wearing masks that covered only their mouth (#2)?

And those get-togethers (#5, #6, #7, #9)? Uncomfortable as it may be, we simply must take precautions — even when it’s family, church members, and/or close friends.

And game-watching at a bar? IMO, bars should never have been opened. Who’s going to take precautions after a few drinks?

Yes, we’re ALL getting virus-weary. But the only way we’re going to conquer this enemy is by stopping its spread.

Please. Do your part.

Could He? Would He?

This video is dated at the end of September, but it certainly has a (scary) prophetic ring to it. The brief clip (@ 3.03) where Trump makes reference to “Congress” indicates he actually has a clue about what Fareed is presenting in the video.

What do you think? Is this what Trump has been working on during his absence/silence?