Scrah, who taught your con law class?
Neutral laws of general applicability are the name of the game. Prohibitions on religious gatherings, that don’t target any specific religion and that are passed on neutral criteria like size of the gathering, pass first amendment muster. You can’t say that the prohibition targets any specific religion.
Derp esq’s take is tantamount to saying churches don’t need to satisfy fire code. This buffoon is literally re ed.
Last edited by vy65; 05-24-2020 at 07:57 PM.
Scrah, who taught your con law class?
Lol derp esq, so wrong about literally everything, especially the “permanent cons ution”
That notion is literally the opposite of the very first thing they teach you in con law - judicial review
Permanent outside of amendments. Don't get desperate, scrah.
Of course this ing coward derp won’t answer with anything of substance. He’ll respond with inane and blatantly wrong statements of law, and keep running away when called out on it. Because he’s a moronic coward that should shut the up about things he clearly knows nothing about, like cons utional law
Cos muh activist judges
Scrah
Sorry but this is ing stupid.
Derp has never had a woman and never will.
Can’t even nail the church lady.
Pretty much all churches/denominations have online services now. Do churches just want money from donations from weekly services?
If you could legal terms into a woman with Down’s syndrome, derp would be her son
Chumpettes: You have e-church.com
Would love to see a reality show where he tries to defend himself in court, tbh... "you're an activist judge! Ron Paul says the cons ution blah blah blah"
your hero is talking about you, derp
Mind Reader Cuckold
Why don't you send out another derp bat signal to him and find out.
I thought you just told me. You backing off that?
It's your thread. He said it's stupid in plain English. I don't need any more confirmation that that.
He could've been referring to any number of things, no?
You really need a w; but it ain't coming, is it?
Supreme Court sides with California's religious gathering limit, rejects church's claim
In a 5-4 decision Friday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s guidance to restrict religious gatherings.
The court denied injunctive relief for South Bay United Pentecostal Church. Justices cast significant doubt on the church’s case, siding with state guidelines that limit attendance in places of worship to 25% or a maximum of 100 attendees.
https://www.wyff4.com/article/suprem...claim/32717863
Lol John Roberts siding with the libs. I honestly thought he would back the church on this one.
The funny thing is that even the dissent didn't claim Newsom didn't have authority to do that, just that he should've applied the same rules as other businesses.
brah derp believes the cons ution allows POTUS to fire supreme court justices at will
Damn, John Roberts going innnnn....
The Governor of California’s Executive Order aims to limit the spread of COVID–19, a novel severe acute respir-atory illness that has killed thousands of people in California and more than 100,000 nationwide.
Get in here Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)