gets bitch-slapped by SCOTUS, 9-0.  They ruled that his mandate that religious gatherings can have no more than 10 people violates the US Constitution.  They may be the first of many beat-downs on these crazy Dem elites that have gone power-mad during Covid.

in DC cannot be overstated. From 5-4 months ago to “no noted dissent” today. Couldn’t be more thrilled.

here who are always lecturing us on the Constitution?  Anybody have the balls to step up and condemn Newsom as one of the worst examples of Liberal elitism?  

as soon as you and your compadres show you have the balls to step up and condemn Your President for making a mockery of the Constitution and rule of law, and for telling tens of millions of voters that their legal votes don’t count.

that the issue is now "established law." Let's see if ACB does the same for Roe v. Wade. Or does it only work on cases she likes?

Ask a lower level court to "rethink" their decision on the mandate. I don't think it overruled the lower level courts decision.
Help us with a link, as this is different then what the court ruled on New York.

In my opinion Roe will be handled in a much more delicate manner. It won’t be overruled completely, but it will be dismantled by a series of decisions which effectively make the exceptions broader than the original decision.

What an ignorant fool you continually prove yourself to be.  Its not a game.  The ruling is a strict construction of the First Amendment and adds nothing new or create any precedent.  Newsome's ban was found to be too broad in its general scope.  An extreme measure in extreme times.  Oh I forgot- you think COVID's a hoax.  But the point is that the ban was not focused on religious gatherings and was painted with too broad a brush.  All other aspects of the ban remain in place.

As far as being a big win for religion - if a bunch of jesus freaks want to get together in a pandemic I imagine there will quite few candidates for the Darwin Award.  That was clearly not anything the court considered, nor should it.

have been going on for months working their way through the legal system on their way to SCOTUS.  Are you saying Newsom is just too stupid to know he was on the wrong side of this once the churches started serving him with lawsuits?  Its not like he came to his senses once he realized it was a constitutional issue.  He fought it  all the way up  the latter until . . . . .  . . . . . .  wait for it . . . .  . he got  bitch-slapped by SCOTUS.  When people in power are too stupid to know they are doing something wrong, what else would you call it.  Lol

 
I never thought it was a game, but it sounds like Newsom thought so.  He  is probably one of the least self-aware people on the planet, and that's why he's so dangerous to our freedom because of the position he's in.  I think most reasonable people would agree with this assessment.

Does this mean that churches on Sunday will be at full capacity now?? Will there be a XMAS mass?
An I asking for too much???

SCOTUS rules against Newsom, you will get many hits, including CNN, and MSNBC, your favorites.

Here's the header to the story
"Justices tell lower court to take another look at California COVID-19 restrictions on indoor worship"
Trying to compare the New York decision to California might not fit for now
Seem like Newsome has the SCOTUS on it toes....Possible a bitch slap by Newsome?

No bitch slap, no 9-0 decision....Your post is misleading.
Please prove me wrong

was no dissent.  Dissent is how they get to a split vote, like 5-4 or 6-3.  No dissent means 9-0 in a legal sense.  Any justice is free to dissent, but the Libs went along with it, too.  That makes it a bitch-slap to Newsom if he can't even get Kagan or Sotomayor on his side.  You probably read in the article that there was NO DISSENT, but just didn't understand the significance.  I'll give you a pass.    

 
For the future, on the supreme court, no dissent means 9-0 agreement, no dissentions.  On an appellate panel, no dissent means 3-0 agreement unless its an en banc decision.   SCOTUS remands the case back to the appellate court to fashion an order that reflects the decision of SCOTUS.  This is standard procedure when there is still something more than needs to be done on the case.  Not all cases get remanded for further action. The appellate judges dare not dissent with SCOTUS.  

Don't ask the CDL to disprove his FAKE POST After all that is what GOP is all about-Putting fake news. It amazes me that CDL put such a BS 9-0 when one can go to Supreme Court Docket case and pull the decision. Newsome did not get bitch slapped but CDL showed again how dumb he really is.

That is not what dissent is.  It is merely a declination to issue an opinion on the issue.  It is not a tacit agreement with the majority ruling.  So please dude, less stupid.

Your reply to my comment above is ridiculous.  Yes there are constant constitutional challenges to efforts to curb the virus and they are expected from the christian right.  They are stupidly spreading the virus with their belief that it's a hoax and jesus will protect them if it isn't is dangerous to all of us.   Again, it's not a game, so stop trying to argue that you don't think it is because that's the basis of your entire comment - Newsome got bitch slapped.

Hey Jinx, you don’t seem to visit here very often and might not be familiar with our use of the term slap, which is used quite liberally (no pun intended). Basically anytime there’s a conflict, and one side clearly prevails, the winner is credited with a bitch slap.  In this instance, Newsom should have conceded his defense the moment SCOTUS issued its religious freedom ratification in the NY case.  He pressed ahead, and was expectedly Bitch slapped.

The fact that no dissent was issued is a testament to the fact that not one judge felt this case belonged at SCOTUS, given the precedent set in the NY case.  I think it’s fair to characterize the ruling as a 9-0 slam dunk.

Looking forward to seeing you visit us again.

He has no proof that the vote was 9-0.  Cuck-da-LIAR supplies no link for his BULLSHIT 9-0 claim.  As Beefman's link shows, the S.Ct. merely issued a two sentence UNSIGNED order.  There was NO written decision - that's why there was no dissent.  For all we know it could have been a 5-4 vote.

 
ChicKenShit175 is even dumber than Cuck-da-LIAR.  He believes the 9-0 lie and claims that Amy Coney Barrett is responsible for turning the Court from 5-4 to 9-0.  What a fucking idiot cks175 is to fall for Cuck-da-LIAR's bullshit!!

 
hpygolky TWICE asked Cuck-da-LIAR to provide a link.  Cuck-da-LIAR failed and refused, and continues to fail and refuse to furnish a link because HE IS A FUCKING LIAR.  Cuck-da-LIAR may have read an article which had a headline like this:
"The high court’s unsigned order Thursday, with no noted dissent, leaves the California restrictions in place for now."
http://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/california/justices-order-review-of-california-virus-rules/103-cf39af23-3b5b-461f-9639-29b2e5a80a1e

 
He didn't provide a link because he wanted to emphasize "no noted dissent'' but didn't want to show the part of the link that said: "The high court’s unsigned order...leaves the California restrictions in place for now."  That sure doesn't sound like a "bitch-slap" to me.

 
When someone else doesn't provide a link, Cuck-da-LIAR says:
"Thanks for the link that backs up your claim.   Oh wait . . . . . you don't have one.  Lol"
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion-boards/politics-and-religion-39/thanks-for-the-link-----355412?page=1

 
The "LOL" is on Cuck-da-LIAR.  He's the trifecta - a liar, an idiot and a hypocrite.

Just look at how the right-to-lifers have operated on the state level. The so-called "right" is still there. But there are no more facilities around at which a woman can exercise it.
But we'll still have the "morning after pill" and I suspect that will be the way this right gets exercised.

As mentioned again, GOP and Qanon members always do not argue base on FACTS. Their argument is based is on FICTION, FALSEHOOD, FRAUD and INNUENDO.  

In this case, the Supreme Court just referred the case back to appeal court.

FYI, Order can be unsigned but once it goes on court docket, it is final. It will get signed at some other point in time.

I can’t make it more simple than that.

The order that sent Newsom’s case back to the lower court was unanimous.

In the House or the Senate, members might not cast a vote due to their (physical) absence or by explicitly abstaining. The non-votes are not added to the "winning" side. In the Senate, a vote of 67 Yes + 20 No + 5 Absent + 8 Abstain does not become 80 Yes 20 No by some sort of ballot tampering.  
.
If the only news is that a bill or motion has passed, there is no way to know the actual vote distribution.

And see what's up, hear whoever, even CDL to see what's up his sleeve. But when he goes off conspiracies then I'm out. But whatcha gonna do, maybe introduce him to Olivia....lol

this in terms you hopefully will understand . . . . . .  There are nine justices on the Supreme Court.  The decision was UNANIMOUS.  When nine justices agree and no one dissents, its a 9-0 result.   If it helps, I could use more words to explain this, but the math is going to come out the same.  Unanimous with no dissents = 9-0.  

 
I'm really surprised you didn't understand the first time I explained it.  The math has not changed.

END OF MESSAGE

What do you know about Constitution anyway? Here is the nutshell about your post. You posted a fake comment about "SCOTUS bitch slapping Newsom 9-0" and when your ass was handed to you with fact that there was no such a ruling, you are crying again with "Constitution".  

You are hilarious. Can you even spell Constitution or you had to run it through spell checker?

@CDL. Please Read it again  

Here is REQUEST (not ruling)  from the Supreme Court word by word: "The application for injunctive relief, presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court, is treated as a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment, and the petition is granted. The September 2 order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with instructions to remand to the District Court for further consideration in light of Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U. S. ___ (2020).

So, let's break it down The appeal is treated as " a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment, and the petition is granted". So what is the definition of "writ of certiorari"? A writ of certiorari mean: "A writ of certiorari is a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a lower court. The word certiorari comes from a Latin word meaning to be more fully informed. And the act of “granting certiorari” means the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case. Then the Supreme Court order the Unite State District Court that the case is vacated and the case is remanded to United States Appeal Court of Ninth Circuit. Now let's see what Remand means: "Remand means to order back, such as a to send back (a case) to another court or agency for further action."

Now that decision was 9-0 by all SCOTUS justices.

When a plaintiff lose a case in a Federal court and appropriate federal appeal court (in this case 9th circuit) and the Supreme Court and SCOTUS issue a writ of certiorari to the appeal court of jurisdiction of were the Federal suit was filed, Then the appellate court will decide whether to grant or deny certiorari. If Certiorari is issued, designated as "cert. granted," when the case presents an issue that is appropriate for resolution by the court and it is in the public interest to do so, such as when the issue has been decided differently by a variety of lower courts, thereby creating confusion and necessitating a uniform interpretation of the law. Certiorari is denied when the appellate court decides that the case does not present an appropriate matter for its consideration. In the practice of the Supreme Court, if a petition has been granted certiorari as a result of a mistake, such as where the petitioner misrepresents the case or the case has become moot, the Court will dismiss the petition as "having been improvidently granted," which has the same effect as an initial denial of the petition. And practically speaking, this rarely occurs.

In nutshell the 9-0 decision was keeping the bucket down the road for NOW.

You can't coach "conspiracy guy"...lol

-- Modified on 12/5/2020 8:51:03 AM