Okay, well I will give you more info since you asked. I brought receipts:
“U.S. District Judge William Stickman IV of the Western District of Pennsylvania ruled that certain restrictions imposed by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf and his administration were unconstitutional. Specifically, Judge Stickman declared that the congregate gathering limitations imposed by Governor Wolf in an Executive Order violated the First Amendment’s right to free assembly. He further found violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection clauses in the now lifted stay-at-home and business closure components of certain Executive Orders. rejected challenges to Governor Wolf’s coronavirus orders. While the court recognized that the Wolf administration “took their actions in a well-intentioned effort to protect Pennsylvanians from the virus … good intentions toward a laudable goal are not alone enough to uphold governmental action against a constitutional challenge.”
“The need to protect public health from the threat of COVID-19 will continue; however, the nature and source of the protections may need to evolve to survive judicial scrutiny.”
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/michigan-supreme-court-finds-statutory-79864/ ““[w]e conclude that the Governor lacked the authority to declare a ‘state of emergency’ or a ‘state of disaster’ under the EMA after April 30, 2020, on the basis of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, we conclude that the EPGA is in violation of the Constitution of our state because it purports to delegate to the executive branch the legislative powers of state government— including its plenary police powers— and to allow the exercise of such powers indefinitely.”
““[E]ven in an emergency, the authority of the government is not unfettered. The liberties protected by the Constitution are not fair-weather freedoms–in place when times are good but able to be cast aside in times of trouble,” Stickman wrote in his ruling. “The Constitution cannot accept the concept of a ‘new normal’ where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures.” “Never before has the government taken a direct action which shuttered so many businesses and sidelined so many employees and rendered their ability to operate, and to work, solely dependent on government discretion,” Stickman continued."
The picture in your original post is of a bar in New York City. Staten island. The mayor/governor you reference would be New York. The Jewish community you referenced in respect to lawsuit would also be in New York. I responded about a New York case that went to the United States supreme Court.
You replied about situations and entirely different states.
Different states. Different cases. Different circumstances. Different legal questions. Different state orders.
Probly not the best to crowd large groups of people into a small space with marginal ventilation and then have them expectorate into the air for an hour, in the midst of a pandemic spread through respiration and expectoration.
And I would bet that the folks in heaven would like to forbid full on church services for a bit to prevent an unnecessary amount of new residents.
I conceded the part about roadblocks with the intent to search for drugs being unconstitutional in the other thread because I actually went and read up on the case.
HOWEVER, they justify this being allowed for alcohol because “public safety overrides the 4th Amendment”, or there would be a lack of consistency in the law, with the latter being the reason why I initially thought drug roadblocks were legal.
This was from the Supreme Court. You can easily extrapolate this wrt to this issue.
As for the verdicts in the Federal Courts, I would love to see - simply out of curiosity, nothing more - what would happen if they were brought before the Supreme Court. US law is at least interesting. Brit law is boring as fuck.
In all fairness this is likely true. The only person you see is your mom when she delivers meatloaf to you in your sweet incel lair located in her basement.
