Tag Archives: #FreedomofAssembly

Posted on by

I guess that Marc Rowan will keep his checkbook closed

Our constitutional rights under the First Amendment include the right of peaceable assembly, and this demonstration on the University of Pennsylvania campus in foul, fetid, fuming, foggy, filthy Philadelphia has been reported to be completely peaceful. But, in speaking their piece, the demonstrators, which included some Penn faculty, have exposed themselves to criticism of their message, and, unfortunately for the supporters of the Palestinians and Hamas terrorists, some of that criticism could come from deep-pockets donors. We have covered the backlash of deep-pockets donors against the outbreak of anti-Semitism on our college campuses, as recently as yesterday, but some people just don’t listen. From The Daily Pennsylvanian, Penn’s student newspaper:

Penn Faculty for Justice in Palestine hosts College Hall protest, blocks main entrance

Continue reading →

Posted on by

The only way to end protests which stop traffic is to not stop traffic for protesters.

The Editorial Board of The Wall Street Journal came up with an absolutely brilliant idea, but one which will not work:

Tort Law vs. the Anti-Israel Protesters

If DAs won’t prosecute, victims can sue for false imprisonment.

By The Editorial Board | Thursday, December 28, 2023 | 6:49 PM EST

Idiots block traffic near LAX to demand Gaza ceasefire.

Normally we wouldn’t wish trial lawyers on our worst enemy. But as anti-Israel demonstrations grow increasingly lawless, the plaintiffs bar could help. Why not hit protesters who break the law and keep Americans from getting to their destination with a tort liability suit for false imprisonment?

On Wednesday anti-Israel protesters blocked access to JFK and LAX airports in New York and Los Angeles, respectively. The laws of New York and California, like most states, recognize the tort. While there is no precedent applying this tort to road-blocking protesters, it fits the offense. The purpose of these demonstrations is to block the road to keep people from getting to the airport — deliberately and against their will.

Continue reading →

Posted on by

The ‘Wise Latina’ says the quiet part out loud.

At the annual Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at UC-Berkeley in 2001, Federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Those words were fished out after President Barack Hussein Obama nominated her to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. What can those words mean other than, as a jurist, Hudge Sotomayor would take her decisions, at least in part, based not on the law, but on her race, sex, and ethnicity.

She backed away from that statement in her confirmation hearings, “declaring it ‘a rhetorical flourish that fell flat’ and stating that ‘I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judgment,'” and she was ultimately confirmed, 68 to 31.

Well, today Associate Justice told us, once again, that it isn’t what is written in the law, or the Constitution, that is important, but people’s feelings! In her dissent in 303 Creative v Elenis, she wrote:

The meaning of our Constitution is not found in any law volume, but in the spirit of the people who live under it.[1]303 Creative v Elenis, , page 38 of dissent, page 70 of the .pdf file.

This is rather remarkable. The Justice, utterly horrified by the decision that a Colorado web designer could not be compelled to create a website for a same-sex ‘wedding,’ cited precedent after precedent telling us that the government could, and has, gotten away with both restricting and compelling various forms of commercial speech, along with dozens of citations of laws and court cases concerning equal access to commerce and commercial enterprises. Yet, after all of that long dissent, she broke down and told us that what was written in the law just flat didn’t matter. What mattered, according to our ‘wise Latina,’ is how the people who live in the United States feel about things.

This is a hugely dangerous position, but one which is hardly unexpected. Justice Sotomayor voted against religious freedom in the cases of Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak and South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, but railed against the decision, this time supporting the freedom of religion and assembly in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v Cuomo. The cases were all about the same thing: the states forcing churches to close, due to the COVID-19 penicdemic, and Justice Sotomayor believed that the virus trumped the Constitution of the United States.

The good Justice also saw nothing wrong with restricting our Second Amendment rights in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen and McDonald v City of Chicago, or upholding equal protection under the law in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. The plain words of the Constitution meant nothing to Justice Sotomayor, or the other liberals on the Court, as they went through all sorts of contortions to say that somehow, some way, the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution just didn’t matter when it came to liberal policies.

The liberals on the Court are hardly the only ones who want to massage the words of the Constitution to mean something other than what they say. The Editorial Board of The New York Times opined:

In striking down affirmative action in higher education on Thursday, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority said it had to do so because the Constitution forbids any form of racial distinction. With a single opinion, the justices overturned decades of precedents that upheld race-conscious admissions policies as consistent with the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause and ignored the reality of modern America, where prejudice and racism endure.

The Editorial Board spend many words telling us why Affirmative Action is so desperately needed, yet never manage to give us a reason as to how it fits under the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Thursday’s ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by all of the Republican-appointed justices, takes a long time to make a simple — and simplistic — point: There is no real difference between the centuries of racial discrimination against Black people and targeted race-conscious efforts to help Black people. Both are equally bad, in this view.

Left unaddressed was one of the Chief Justice’s points, that, in the context of university admissions, which are a zero-sum game, helping black applicants has another effect, hurting white and Asian applicants.

There is so much more that could be said, but, in the end, it boils down to this: the left have programs in mind which elevate the programs of the government over the rights of individuals, and today’s left are fine with that. And that is why sensible people must fight the left, fight for our rights, because the left won’t help us.

References

References
↑1 303 Creative v Elenis, , page 38 of dissent, page 70 of the .pdf file.
Posted on by

Our Freedom of Religion vindicated!

St Elizabeth’s Catholic Church, where I attend Mass

We were critical, from the very beginning, of the authoritarian dictates of so many of our nation’s governors when the COVID-19 scare first erupted.

On March 19, 2020 Governor Andy Beshear (D-KY) unconstitutionally ordered all churches closed in the Bluegrass State. That order covered the Easter holiday, the most important day in the Christian calendar. When a couple of churches ignored the Governor’s order, he sent the Kentucky State Police to record license plates and vehicle identification numbers on vehicles in church parking lots, on Easter Sunday!

Two federal judges ruled against the Governor, allowing churches to reopen, but they did not rule until May 8, 2020.

Then, on July 24, 2020, he asked church leaders to suspend services for two Sundays, which most declined to do, and again on November 19th made another request that churches close, for “three or four weeks,” a request that would have taken them through Thanksgiving. Fortunately, that request was denied as well.

Now comes yet another court ruling, telling us that the Constitution means what it says, and that state Governors cannot restrict our freedom of religion: Continue reading →

Posted on by

The Patriot Front marches

Twitter was full of stuff on this march held by the Patriot Front.

Much was made of the marchers being masked, masked to conceal their identities rather than any submission to COVID-19 masking requirements, and it looked so staged that many though it had to be a joke, a set-up by the Lincoln Project or some other silliness group. The group marched in quasi military order, and they were carrying American flags. To the left, carrying the flag is apparently a hate symbol. That the marchers were masked led to cries of outrage by the left, the same left which thought nothing about antifa marching masked throughout 2020’s summer of riots.

The hand-written copy of the proposed articles of amendment passed by Congress in 1789, cropped to show just the text in the third article that would later be ratified as the First Amendment.

The First Amendment to the Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

And that’s the point: the Patriot Front exercised their constitutional rights of freedom of speech and peaceable assembly. Unlike the left’s Mostly Peaceful Protests™ of last year, the Patriot Front was peaceful. They assaulted no one, and they set no buildings on fire.

The masks? Given how the feds were using facial recognition software to identify and prosecute people who took part in the January 6th Capitol kerfuffle, and have held some of the charged without bail, despite not having charged them with any violent offences, who can blame them? Antifa have largely gotten away with violence, mayhem, looting and arson by going masked, so why shouldn’t the Patriot Front use the same tactic during a peaceful protest. The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies the patriot Front as a white supremacist group, and tries to get members fired from their jobs, so yeah, it’s important to the members.

You don’t have to agree with the group’s message to support their right to speak and assemble as they please.

Posted on by

Journolism at its finest: The Philadelphia Inquirer and one-sided reporting

We learned it in high school, if not earlier, how the Bill of Rights protected our rights as the citizens of a free republic. The First Amendment to the Constitution states:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The hand-written copy of the proposed articles of amendment passed by Congress in 1789, cropped to show just the text in the third article that would later be ratified as the First Amendment.

Over the course of our history, the Supreme Court has ‘incorporated’ most of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, to include protections for the people from actions by states and local governments, and Americans alive in the 21st century are all used to the concepts of freedom of speech.

We have, sadly, noted how some of our major media sources are no longer so adamant about protecting our First Amendment rights.

Now comes The Philadelphia Inquirer, with a very slanted article about how some people have exercised their freedom of speech, and freedom of peaceable assembly, and how horrible it is! Continue reading →

Posted on by

It has come awfully late in the game, but at last it has come! Governor Beshear has been slapped down by the courts!

As we have frequently noted, Governor Andy Beshear (D-KY) has been trying to run out the clock with his ’emergency’ decrees under KRS 39A. The Kentucky state Supreme Court, on April 16th, decided to hold a hearing on the disagreement between courts in Franklin and Scott counties over the Governor’s executive orders, and then set June 10th, a date then eight weeks into the future, for a hearing.

On May 6th, Governor Beshear announced that he would loosen the restrictions, but not eliminate them entirely, effective just before the Memorial Day weekend. Then, on May 14th, the Governor announced that almost all restrictions would be lifted on Kentuckians, including the hated mask mandate, even for those who are not vaccinated against COVID-19. He had, the previous day, followed the Centers for Disease Control’s recommendations, and stated that “fully vaccinated” Kentuckians could dispense with face masks.

Well, today is June 8th, just two days before the state Supreme Court hears oral arguments, and three days before our dictatorial Governor will (supposedly) lift almost all of his emergency COVID-19 orders. But today, the Boone County Circuit Court declared the Governors actions to be illegal and unconstitutional.

THEREFORE, JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED in favor of Plaintiff and DECLARATORY RELIEF is GRANTED in that the Court finds and declares that all actions taken by Defendants, Hon. Andrew Beshear, as Governor, Mr. Eric Friedlander, as acting Secretary of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, and Dr. Steven Stack, M.D., as Commissioner for the Department of Public Health, and all emergency orders imposed by said defendants, or that are being continued by said defendants, are unconstitutional, void and without any legal effect, to the extent that the same are in conflict with, or otherwise contrary to, House Bill 1, Senate Bill 1, Senate Bill 2, and House Joint Resolution 77, as passed by the 2021 session of the General Assembly.

Here’s the decision:

Boone Circuit Court Order by Chris

This should have come at the end of March, not today, but it is at least a bit of a relief that it has occurred.

Posted on by

What evidence has there been that the #COVID19 restrictions actually reduced infections?

From my good friend — can I call him a good friend if I’ve never actually met him? — Robert Stacy McCain:

Truth or Satire? It’s Getting Harder to Tell

By Robert Stacy McCain | May 8, 2021

January headline from The Babylon Bee:

 

CNN Unveils New Format Where Hosts Just Watch Fox News And Yell At It

 

This is awfully close to describing what’s happened to CNN in recent months. Once Biden was inaugurated, the network lost its raison d’être of producing anti-Trump propaganda. Ratings for CNN have evaporated since January and, unable to excite their audience with live performances of journalistic fellatio on Biden (metaphorically speaking), they devote hours every day to critiquing whatever is on Fox News.

So the other night, Tucker Carlson raised questions about whether the number of deaths from COVID-19 vaccine are being underreported. He didn’t advance any “conspiracy theory” during that segment, or make claims that could justify Sanjay Gupta’s unhinged reaction:

“What he’s done is he’s basically looked at these open-system adverse reporting systems and said ‘hey look, this suggests that 30 people a day are dying of the vaccine.’ Absolutely not true,” Gupta said on CNN’s New Day.

“The problem is that it continues to stir up this vaccine hesitance or outright vaccine reluctance . . .

Hey, Dr. Gupta: Maybe “vaccine hesitance” doesn’t really matter, but do you really care about Fox News viewers? No, I’m pretty sure you would be very happy if they all died tomorrow. So please spare us your concern-trolling. My thought all along has been that the draconian lockdown regimes and mandatory mask-wearing orders, at best, didn’t do much to stop the pandemic and quite possibly made it worse. Anyone can examine the state-by-state per-capita death rates and see that there is no clear correlation between the severity of the lockdown regimes and the relative safety of populations. Florida is doing just fine, despite all the hate directed at Gov. DeSantis by CNN and other liberal media outlets that prophesied a catastrophe in the Sunshine State.

There’s more at the original.

While I did not look at Florida’s numbers, I have concentrated on Texas, where Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, ended the mask mandate and most other state restrictions on March 10th, to predictions of death and disease by the so-called ‘experts.’

Governor Andy Beshear’s (D-KY) latest thirty-day renewal of the illegal and repugnant mask mandate expires on Thursday, May 27th, at 5:00 PM EDT, just before his other COVID-19 restrictions are scheduled to be weakened, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see him issue that one again.

Reiterating that Kentucky will not be repealing its mask mandate anytime soon, Gov. Andy Beshear announced 1,068 new cases of COVID-19 in Kentucky on Thursday, as well as 28 virus-related deaths.

Earlier this week, Republican governors in Texas and Mississippi lifted coronavirus restrictions, repealing their states’ mask mandates and reopening businesses to full capacity. Kentucky will not do that, Beshear said.

“We’re going to continue to lose people until we’re fully out of the woods and everybody is vaccinated,” he said in a live update. “That’s the reason we’re not going to do what Texas or Mississippi has done. Those decisions will increase casualties when we just have maybe even a matter of months to go.”

Except, of course, those decisions did not increase casualties, the seven day moving average of new cases in the Lone Star state being down to 2,651 as of May 6th, the lowest figure since June 17, 2020, while Mississippi is seeing a seven-day moving average of 182 new cases per day, a number not seen since April 14, 2020.

That much, I reported yesterday, but I’ve since done more research. Texas currently has the lowest moving seven-day average of new COVID-19 cases since June of 2020, that average having dropped precipitously since the mask mandate ended. Texas, with a seven-day moving average of 2651 new COVID cases per day, and a population of 29.15 million, has a new case rate of 9.09 new cases per 100,000 population. Texas has no mask mandate and few restrictions. Texas has 29% of the adult populate fully vaccinated, and 39% have received first shot. Kentucky, with a moving average of 581 and a population of 4048 million, is seeing new cases at a rate of 12.97 per 100,000, despite having mask mandate, more restrictions, and a higher percentage of population vaccinated, 33% fully vaccinated and 42% having received one dose. Texas has slightly higher population density, 109.9 per mi² compared to Kentucky’s 107.4 per mi². Despite what the so-called experts claimed, ending the mask mandate in Texas did not lead to unparalleled death and disease. Based on empirical evidence, the capacity restrictions and mask mandates had no positive effect on infection rate.

The scientific method is to produce an hypothesis, and then test it to see if it is true. Actual real world testing of the restrictions has not borne out the hypothesis that our freedoms needed to be restricted, our constitutional rights needed to be violated.

What about Michigan? Governor Gretchen Whitless Whitmer has imposed some of the strictest COVID-19 restrictions in the nation. On May 6, the same date as the figures reported above for Texas and Kentucky, Michigan’s seven-day moving average was 3,317 new cases per day, 666 more per day than Texas’ 2,651. Yet Texas has almost thrice Michigan’s population of 9,966,555 people. Where Texas is seeing 9.09 new cases per day per 100,000 population, Michigan’s rate is 33.28 per 100,000, more than thrice that of the Lone Star State. Michigan has seen 35% of its adult population fully vaccinated, and 44% have received their first, dose, a rate higher than that in Texas, and even slightly higher than in the Bluegrass State. Michigan does have a significantly higher population density of 174 per mi².

But one thing is clear: Governor Whitless’ Whitmer’s restrictions have not helped.

Mr McCain mentioned Florida, but the Sunshine State only lifted all mask mandates five days ago, so there isn’t much difference from Michigan. At a moving seven day average of 4,317 new cases per day, in a population of 21.48 million people, Florida’s average of 20.10 per 100,00 population is just 2/3 that of Michigan’s, despite Florida’s more than twice as great population density of 397.2 people per mi². Michigan’s restrictions have, in general, been far stricter than Florida’s, but, there it is again, Florida is seeing fewer cases on a per population basis.

Again, the empirical evidence is that the greater restrictions don’t reduce China virus infection rates![1]See this as to why I am occasionally referring to it as the China virus.

We have gone through more than a year of authoritarian governors, mostly without the consent of their state legislatures, imposing restrictions on our freedoms and our constitutional rights, because it has been claimed to be necessary to protect us from the Wuhan virus. But once a few governors, all seemingly Republicans, recovered their nerve and started paying attention to our rights, the evidence jumped out at us: the restrictions didn’t help to protect us at all.

References

References
↑1 See this as to why I am occasionally referring to it as the China virus.
Posted on by

This is not a great victory It helps, but still leaves open the possibility that the State can regulate whom you allow to enter your home

Hypocrite Gavin Newsom violates his own orders on private gatherings.

I admit it: I had never heard of Governor Gavin Newson’s (D-CA) prohibition on gatherings of people from more than three households in private homes, but I can’t say that I am surprised; only liberals would think that the government has any authority on whom you can invite into your own home. Fortunately, thye United States Supreme Court invalidated it, at least for in-home Bible study groups:

Supreme Court again blocks California Covid restriction on religious activities

By Joan Biskupic, CNN legal analyst & Supreme Court biographer | Updated 1:31 AM ET, Saturday, April 10, 2021

(CNN) The Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote on Friday blocked another state Covid-19 restriction on religious services, with another late-night order, over protests from California officials that the limits affecting some Bible study sessions did not impinge on religious rights and were to be lifted within days.

The unsigned order for the high court majority also revealed the deep ideological fissure, with conservatives (including the three appointees of former President Donald Trump) in control and liberals dissenting bitterly.

Chief Justice John Roberts also dissented, although he did not sign the statement by the three justices on the left, written by Justice Elena Kagan.

“In ordering California to weaken its restrictions on at-home gatherings, the majority yet again insists on treating unlike cases, not like ones, equivalently,” Kagan wrote, adding that “the law does not require that the State equally treat apples and watermelons.”

“And (the majority) once more commands California to ignore its experts’ scientific findings, thus impairing the State’s effort to address a public health emergency.”

Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, religious adherents have implored the justices to prevent certain state health restrictions affecting religious services and they have notably prevailed since October’s addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, succeeding the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Then we must thank God that Justice Barrett replaced Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, because Justice Ginsburg had voted to allow such restrictions before she went to her eternal reward. By what right does the government, whether local, state or federal, have the authority to determine whom we allow into our homes?

I know, I know, Governors in many states issued such restrictions, including Governor Andy Beshear (D-KY). I am happy to state that we violated Governor Beshear’s authoritarian decrees on both Thanksgiving and Christmas (he ordered no more than ten persons, from no more than two households), and had the Governor himself showed up at the door, I would have given him the finger and told him to get the f(ornicate) off my property.[1]Though the gatherings were of fewer than ten people, they were from three households. More, when my sister, who didn’t attend the dinner itself, came by to pick up a Thanksgiving dinner plate, … Continue reading

But a whole lot of the sheeple accepted this, accepted the idea that the State could tell them whom they could invite into their homes, with whom they could associate, and how. The decision in Tandon v Newsom was based on the Pyrite State treating religion differently, and more strictly, than some other gatherings — the Governor’s attorneys claimed that the in-person Bible study sessions were being treated no differently than any other in home gatherings — but that ignores the fact that the state was limiting freedom of association as well as freedom of religion. From the unsigned Per Curiam order:

(N)arrow tailoring requires the government to show that measures less restrictive of the First Amendment activity could not address its interest in reducing the spread of COVID. Where the government permits other activities to proceed with precautions, it must show that the religious exercise at issue is more dangerous than those activities even when the same precautions are applied.

This paragraph accepts the idea that the government’s “interest in reducing the spread of COVID” extends into the individual homes of the American people; the decision simply holds that California’s orders were not well-written enough.

Applicants are likely to succeed on the merits of their free exercise claim; they are irreparably harmed by the loss of free exercise rights “for even minimal periods of time”; and the State has not shown that “public health would be imperiled” by employing less restrictive measures.

Translation: if the State could show that public health would be imperiled by not intruding into people’s private homes, the Court could allow it.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States specifies that:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What are we to conclude that, if the State could demonstrate that public health — or whatever other “compelling” government interest the authoritarians could dream up — would be imperiled, it would be reasonable for the authorities to enter your home and siese the “persons or things” to be removed, even if there was no crime committed?

I get it: the Supreme Court likes to narrowly tailor its own decisions and precedents, but this decision, while a victory for freedom or religion, does not go far enough, and leaves open the possibility that the State can control who enters your private home.

References

References
↑1 Though the gatherings were of fewer than ten people, they were from three households. More, when my sister, who didn’t attend the dinner itself, came by to pick up a Thanksgiving dinner plate, that constituted a fourth household. Up yours, Governor Beshear!