(12-01-2020, 09:56 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote: I don't think anyone has posted the per curiam Supreme Court decision granting injunctive relief to Catholic and Jewish organizations against various covid orders made by Cuomo,but here it is. Candidly, since this was the first encounter of the new conservative majority with a religious issue, and the decision was 5-4, I was expecting more of a hullabaloo. But the reaction was surprisingly muted. You can see why when you read the factual recitals of the majority. (A note of caution - this came to the Court as a petition for injunctive relief, which means the reviewing Court accepts the factual allegations in the complaint as true or at least provable. Religious organizations are as capable as any other litigant of gilding the lily. Something to keep in mind.)
But if the plaintiffs can prove out their case, it's a doozy. There seems to be an incredible amount of arbitrariness in Cuomo's approach to covid enforcement vis a vis religious and commercial organizations. One Jewish organization even alleges gerrymandering of red and orange zones to limit the size of congregations and activity.
To me, this underscores the false dichotomy of 'following the science' or not. To be sure, Trump and the anti-mask stuff have made fools of themselves with sensible social distancing measures. But if you think Blue State types like Cuomo, Whitmer, and Newsom have taken a scrupulously scientific approach, I think you're a bit naive. The NY measures are ridden with policy, some of it quite arbitrary. Whitmer faced much the same criticism, not so much on the approach as a whole, but an unjustifiable arbitrariness about too much of this. (I think of the golf restrictions, which I am cynical enough to believe was simple Democratic racial politics. If you're going to stop inner city kids from playing basketball, you have to stop country club members from playing golf, even though there are plenty of public links and of immense proportions numbers of African-Americans enjoy the game. Never mind that the two games are entirely different, and golf can easily be played with appropriate distance. THAT's the science, but it didn't matter.) There was also the indifference to social distancing measures in connection with the Floyd riots.
Right at the moment, much of the Santa Clara County regimen makes sense - but not all. I can understand barring spectators from events, but not banning the events themselves. Maybe football, because of the sheer number of participants - but certainly not basketball, or college or club tennis. It's not that there might not be an epidemiological justification for this - just that it is not immediately evident - and I don't think the American people take anything on faith, particularly measures this drastic.
Trump bears his lion's share of the blame for public cynicism. But if you believe in 'following the science', I don't think any State has done it. You see corruption by politics and policy everywhere.
I was two seconds from posting the decision when I saw this (in response to a post). The holding itself is narrow. And fairly predictable. The “facts” cited are the more troubling aspect. Of course those have to be proven if the suit goes forward.
(12-01-2020, 12:32 PM)lex24 Wrote:(12-01-2020, 09:56 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote: I don't think anyone has posted the per curiam Supreme Court decision granting injunctive relief to Catholic and Jewish organizations against various covid orders made by Cuomo,but here it is. Candidly, since this was the first encounter of the new conservative majority with a religious issue, and the decision was 5-4, I was expecting more of a hullabaloo. But the reaction was surprisingly muted. You can see why when you read the factual recitals of the majority. (A note of caution - this came to the Court as a petition for injunctive relief, which means the reviewing Court accepts the factual allegations in the complaint as true or at least provable. Religious organizations are as capable as any other litigant of gilding the lily. Something to keep in mind.)
But if the plaintiffs can prove out their case, it's a doozy. There seems to be an incredible amount of arbitrariness in Cuomo's approach to covid enforcement vis a vis religious and commercial organizations. One Jewish organization even alleges gerrymandering of red and orange zones to limit the size of congregations and activity.
To me, this underscores the false dichotomy of 'following the science' or not. To be sure, Trump and the anti-mask stuff have made fools of themselves with sensible social distancing measures. But if you think Blue State types like Cuomo, Whitmer, and Newsom have taken a scrupulously scientific approach, I think you're a bit naive. The NY measures are ridden with policy, some of it quite arbitrary. Whitmer faced much the same criticism, not so much on the approach as a whole, but an unjustifiable arbitrariness about too much of this. (I think of the golf restrictions, which I am cynical enough to believe was simple Democratic racial politics. If you're going to stop inner city kids from playing basketball, you have to stop country club members from playing golf, even though there are plenty of public links and of immense proportions numbers of African-Americans enjoy the game. Never mind that the two games are entirely different, and golf can easily be played with appropriate distance. THAT's the science, but it didn't matter.) There was also the indifference to social distancing measures in connection with the Floyd riots.
Right at the moment, much of the Santa Clara County regimen makes sense - but not all. I can understand barring spectators from events, but not banning the events themselves. Maybe football, because of the sheer number of participants - but certainly not basketball, or college or club tennis. It's not that there might not be an epidemiological justification for this - just that it is not immediately evident - and I don't think the American people take anything on faith, particularly measures this drastic.
Trump bears his lion's share of the blame for public cynicism. But if you believe in 'following the science', I don't think any State has done it. You see corruption by politics and policy everywhere.
I was two seconds from posting the decision when I saw this (in response to a post). The holding itself is narrow. And fairly predictable. The “facts” cited are the more troubling aspect. Of course those have to be proven if the suit goes forward.
As to the college and pro sports ban - all I’d like is some proof that’s it has contributed to the issue that is leading to the increased measures - which is Covid hospitalizations. If so, then fine. But no one even asks the question.
In fact, there is very little questioning from the press on any of this. CNN had the SCC counsel on. Not one difficult question during the interview as to the Y. Simply throwing softballs and patting him on the back for the tough measures he’s taking and him talking about the need for state and federal federal help. But that’s what I would expect. Because he’s on the right side of the political divide when it comes to CNN. If he was on Fox of course he probably would’ve been roasted. But I suspect he won’t go on Fox. There in lies the problem with today’s media. Ideologically based media is a very very bad thing. And that is essentially all we have right now.