However, this brief news report concerning a recent non-2A related SCOTUS ruling gives me some pause as to her level of support of our most basic of enumerated rights.
Excerpts from Fox News article. Bolded emphasis mine. Full article linked below.:
If ACB (and as usual, Roberts) are ok with the State deciding that they can either totally eliminate or severely restrict a basic enumerated right - the very First Amendment in this case - because of "circumstances," then what's to prevent any right being eliminated or restricted as the State desires for any other reason at any time under whatever the State decides is a dangerous circumstance?The U.S. Supreme Court in a split decision Friday night ruled that houses of worship in California may hold indoor services at 25% capacity, giving a partial win to groups fighting the state’s coronavirus restrictions, according to reports.
The state will be permitted to restrict singing and chanting during services, the court said.
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas reportedly said they would have lifted all restrictions on churches while the court's three liberal justices dissented.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was confirmed last fall, both favored a middle ground short of lifting all of the restrictions on religious gatherings, according to Politico.
"The state has concluded, for example, that singing indoors poses a heightened risk of transmitting Covid-19," Roberts wrote.
Can we count on ACB when the "Big 2A Case" (whatever that me be) comes up? Thoughts?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/suprem ... ome-limits