Supreme Court

Supreme Court Justice Drops Bombshell Announcement at Just the Right Time

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito made an announcement during a speech before the Federalist Society on Thursday, stating that “in certain quarters, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right.”

Alito continued, saying that religious liberty is viewed by some as “not a cherished freedom, it’s often just an excuse for bigotry and it can’t be tolerated, even when there is no evidence that anybody has been harmed.”

Justice Alito began his speech by cautioning that, aside from any specific references made to Supreme Court cases, he is not making a statement on the legality of COVID restrictions, and is not commenting as to whether the restrictions constitute good policy. But he did say that COVID has “highlighted disturbing trends that were already present before the virus struck.”

Continuing on that subject, Alito said that cases involving COVID restrictions have “pointed up emerging trends in the assessment of individual rights. This is especially evident with respect to religious liberty. It pains me to say this, but in certain quarters, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right.”

Alito went on to contrast the bipartisan passage of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act with the backlash among the left when states have tried to pass or passed similar legislation in recent years.

The Supreme Court Justice then turned to “the protracted campaign against the Little Sisters of the Poor,” the Ralph’s pharmacy case, and the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. Alito remarked, “You can easily see the point, for many today, religious liberty is not a cherished freedom, it’s often just an excuse for bigotry and it can’t be tolerated, even when there is no evidence that anybody has been harmed. And the cases I just mentioned illustrate the point. As far as I’m aware, not one employee of the Little Sisters has come forward and demanded contraceptives under the Little Sisters’ plan. There was no risk that Ralph’s referral practice would have deprived any woman of the drug she sought and no reason to think that Jack Phillips’ stand would deprive any same-sex couple of a wedding cake. The couple that came to his shop was given a free cake by another bakery, and celebrity chefs have jumped to the couple’s defense.”

Alito then discussed cases where COVID restrictions that “blatantly discriminated against houses of worship” in California and Nevada were upheld by the Supreme Court. Alito stated that in both cases, the rationale of the decision was that the court should defer to the governors. Alito added that this deference allowed Nevada to treat “casinos more favorably than houses of worship.”

He added, “If what I have said so far does not convince you that religious liberty is in danger of becoming a second-class right, consider a case that came shortly after the Nevada case.”

Alito then talked about U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang’s ruling, which suspended the FDA’s requirement that women who want to obtain an abortion pill have to pick up the drug at a clinic. Alito discussed Judge Chuang’s rationale that enforcing the rule would interfere with abortion rights, because some women might not get the pill due to fear of contracting COVID if they leave their homes. The Supreme Court Justice noted that, at the time of the court decision, the governor of Maryland had opened many places of business, and “apparently concluded that Marylanders could safely engage in all sorts of activities outside the home. … If deference was appropriate in the California and Nevada cases, then surely, we should have deferred to the federal Food and Drug Administration on an issue of drug safety. But no, in this instance, the right in question was the abortion right, not the right to religious liberty, and the abortion right prevailed.”

  1. It seems the constitution doesn’t mean a thing to some judges in this country. It appears that they want to legislate from the court, not follow the laws as they are written. When are the courts of this land going to be accountable, for the actions or lack of actions in some cases, just to be politically correct. I want judges that go according to the laws, as they are written, not their interpretations of laws. We need this in this country, to survive as a free country, not a country run by politics. The constitution has to mean something, the way it was written, not some politicians satanist ideal, of what it says.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Article
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meets UN General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon

Biden Considering Hillary Clinton For UN Ambassador

Next Article


Related Posts