Jim Ulvog

This three part series looks at rulings which show courts are beginning to recognize that imposing severe restrictions on religious worship constitutes a violation of the free expression clause of First Amendment.

Just in case you think I’m being too harsh in my sarcastic, ridiculing comments regarding the attacks on the First Amendment, check out some of these court rulings.

When it comes to criticizing unconstitutional government rules, I’m a lightweight compared to any of these judges.

These posts focus on two lower courts that re-read the U.S. Constitution after the U.S. Supreme Court started the refreshing trend of actually reading said Constitution before issuing a ruling. The cases:

• Supreme Court – Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn
• California Superior Court – Bakersfield Division – Father Trevor Burfitt vs Gavin Newsom
• Ninth Circuit –Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak (current post)

 

Ninth Circuit –Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak.

12/15/20 – Hill Faith – First Amendment: Court Strikes Down Nevada’s Covid Church Attendance Limits – Nevada issued rules restricting the number of people who can gather for worship to the lesser of 50% of fire code capacity or 50 people. Large number of other activities have a restriction level of 50% of fire code capacity.

The 50% only limit without a numerical cap applies to “casinos, bowling alleys, retail businesses, restaurants, arcades, and other similar secular entities.”

(more…)

This three part series looks at rulings which show courts are beginning to recognize to impose severe restrictions on religious worship constitutes a violation of the free expression clause of First Amendment.

Just in case you think I’m being too harsh in my sarcastic, ridiculing comments regarding the attacks on the First Amendment, you really need to check out some of these court rulings.

In terms of criticism of constitution-ignoring governments I am a mere simplistic lightweight simpleton with lightweight  rhetoric compared to any one of the following judges. I wouldn’t think of calling the alleged thought process of the California government specious.

These posts focus on two lower courts that re-read the U.S. Constitution after the U.S. Supreme Court started the refreshing trend of actually reading said Constitution. The cases:

• Supreme Court – Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn (previous post)
• California Superior Court – Bakersfield Division – Father Trevor Burfitt vs Gavin Newsom (current discussion)
• Ninth Circuit –Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak.

California Superior Court – Bakersfield Division – Father Trevor Burfitt vs Gavin Newsom

12/11/20 – Hill Faith – California Court Delivers Stinging Rebuke To Newsom’s Anti-Church Covid-19 Regulations – California Superior Court Judge Gregory Pulskamp granted a preliminary injunction allowing several churches to continue worship, after finding the state requirements violate the California Constitution.

The ruling is titled Father Trevor Burfitt vs Gavin Newsom and can be found here.

The core issue is concealed in this technical sentence on page 1:

“Although Defendants collectively advocate for the use of a “rational basis” standard, it is clear that when restrictions appear to treat religious activity less favorably than comparable secular activities, the restrictions are subject to “strict scrutiny.””

If you understood that sentence, you can already guess what the ruling will be.

To my little pea-brain, the case is almost resolved when this sentence is provided on page 2:

“In this case, the restrictions are not “neutral” and of “general applicability” because they assign entities into disparate classifications which results in religious activities being treated less favorably than comparable secular activities.”

Following comment is so scathing it ought to be wrapped in fire-resistant fabric:

“Entities permitted to engage in indoor activities – also known as “essential businesses” or “critical infrastructure” – include big-box retail stores, grocery stores, home improvement stores, hotels, airports, train stations, bus stations, movie production houses, warehouses, factories, schools, and a lengthy list of additional businesses. It is important to note that almost all of the entities that are allowed to host indoor operations do not engage in activity that is constitutionally protected, whereas houses of worship do.

Nowhere does the Constitution mention home improvement stores or movie production companies, yet they are allowed to continue indoor operations while constitutionally protected worship services are not. Ouch.

After summarizing the government’s response to the strict scrutiny issue, the ruling continues:

“To the contrary, based on the evidence presented (or lack thereof) and common knowledge, it appears that shoppers at a Costco, Walmart, Home Depot, etc. may – and frequently do – congregate in numbers, proximity, and duration that is very comparable to worshippers in houses of worship. Defendants have not convincingly established that the health risks associated with houses of worship would be any different than “essential businesses” or “critical infrastructure,” assuming the same requirements of social distancing and the wearing of masks were applied across the board

So, no difference in risk between a trip to Costco and sitting through a worship service. Double ouch.

Ruling then cites comment by Justice Kavanaugh in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn:

“Assuming all of the same precautions are taken, why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but not a pew? And why can someone safely interact with a brave deliverywoman but not with a stoic minister?”

Why indeed.

The ruling continues to identify that the New York restrictions of 10 people in “red zones” and 25 in “orange zones” were categorized by the Supreme Court as “very severe restrictions.” What then to make of the California restrictions which set the restriction at zero for indoor worship? Seems to me that zero would be an order of magnitude beyond “very severe restrictions.”

Ruling then explains the government has not demonstrated that are indoor worship word “negatively impact public health.”

The court finds as specious the government’s argument that watching TV is the same as worshiping in person. Don’t believe a court could be that harsh? Check it out for yourself:

“Similarly, Defendants’ protestations that religious services may still be offered through means of modern telecommunication, such as TV or web-based platforms, seem specious because, as noted in Roman Catholic Diocese, “such remote viewing is not the same as personal attendance.” “

I just had to go look up the definition of specious:

specious

adjective

superficially plausible, but actually wrong.

misleading in appearance, especially misleadingly attractive.

Let me rephrase the comment:

Government protestations that religious services may still be offered through means of modern telecommunication are superficially plausible but actually wrong and in fact are misleading in appearance.

Specious arguments. Ouch, ouch, ouch.

The court ruled the state requirements are a clear violation of the California Constitution:

“The free exercise of religion clause in the California Constitution prohibits Defendants from treating religious activities worse than comparable secular activities. California’s current Covid-related restrictions do exactly that.”

The court granted a temporary injunction against the state of California until a full trial is held on the merits of the case.

Care to make any wild guess what the court will be thinking at trial, guided by the recent SCOTUS ruling?

Next post: ruling from the Ninth Circuit applying the Supreme Court ruling to rules in Nevada. Hint: the rules violate the U.S. Constitution.

Courts are beginning to recognize that imposing more severe restrictions on religious worship than other similar activities constitutes a violation of the free expression clause of First Amendment.

Just in case you think I’m being too harsh in my sarcastic, ridiculing comments regarding the attacks on the First Amendment, you really need to check out some of these court rulings.

The following rulings entail complex sentences with multiple subordinate clauses, systematic use of multisyllable words, embedded legal citations, technical legal verbiage, and subtle nuance. Hidden behind those comments are harsh and brutal critiques of the egregious violations of religious freedom guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

In terms of criticism of constitution-ignoring governments I am a mere simplistic lightweight simpleton compared to any one of the following judges.

This series of posts will provide more background on the Supreme Court ruling that started this trend of courts on actually reading the Constitution and then discuss two more rulings. The cases:

• Supreme Court – Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn
• California Superior Court – Bakersfield Division – Father Trevor Burfitt vs Gavin Newsom
• Ninth Circuit –Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak.

12/14/20 – Hill Faith – Justice Samuel Alito’s Christmas Present For America – Article calls attention to a speech given by Associate Justice Alito to the Federalist Society’s National Wires convention back in November.

In his speech he opined the religious freedom protections outlined in the first amendment are in more danger now than ever before with politicians using the pandemic as an excuse to walk all over the Constitution (my paraphrase of the article).

(more…)

News reports are emerging which explain the double-blind, peer-reviewed, easily replicated science behind various lockdown requirements is assumptions and guesses. Oh, and in Virginia the hard-core science supporting a curfew is the governor’s “common sense.”

Consider:

• Medical doctor on the White House coronavirus task force says there is no science behind concept of banning outdoor or even indoor dining.
• Research studies which are cited to prove restaurant dining is dangerous are seriously flawed.
• Only support for a midnight to 5 a.m. curfew in Virginia is the governor’s common sense.
• Senior WHO official suggests not using lockdown as primary tool to fight the virus becuase of the severe side effects.

 

(Might want to get a fresh cup of coffee – takes lots of words to deliver this double dose of ridicule.)

12/9/20 – Red State – Video: CA HHS Secretary Admit Outdoor Dining Ban Is About Control, Not Science – Coverage of the story is a bit thin. My brief research shows major news outlets are not discussing it.

The point? There is no evidence to support the idea of shutting down outdoor dining. None.

12/8/20 – Fox News – White House Coronavirus Task Force members Fauci, Giroir at odds over California lockdowns – In the Monday meeting of the task force, Admiral Brett Giroir, Assistant Secretary for Health and Human Services said it is important to limit indoor crowding but also said, as quoted, that he has not yet seen

“Any data that says you need to shut down outdoor dining or outdoor bars.”

The Admiral is also a medical doctor.

He also said:

(more…)

Clear trends and solid statistics are not presented in modern news stories unless there is a specific individual who illustrates whatever point is being explained.

So, in accordance with modern journalist standards, this post will provide a specific story of a specific teenager who killed himself specifically because of the lockdown. Then we will look at overall statistics showing the lockdowns harm mental health. In other words, we will look at actual science.

So, here is the story: Lockdowns kill people.

Check out the following:

• Lockdown led one teenager to take his own life.
• Lockdowns are reducing the number of people in good or excellent mental health.
• Lockdowns are depressing elementary school children.
• Lockdowns are causing increase in binge drinking.

Power-hungry governors and economically ignorant, science-impaired public health officials, please take note.

(more…)

Studies are emerging showing the damage to children who are trying to learn remotely. I am hearing anecdotal reports that remote learning is not working, but that is only anecdotal. News reports are starting to lend credence to the intuitively obvious.

Multiple articles are indicating higher education is going to have a worse time in fall 2021 then they have now.

Check out the following:

• Remote learning is hurting children.
• Colleges have let go 10% of their staff during the pandemic.
• Admissions season is looking grim.
• Drastic drop in number of students completing the financial aid form used to access essentially all forms of financial assistance for college.

11/12/20 – American Enterprise Institute – The damage because when we close down schools – it’s worse than you think – Article says that if remote learning actually worked there should be a great result in the Netherlands are conditions are quite favorable to remote classes. However, the analysis says overall students made little progress during the brief shutdown and students from homes where there was less education for the parents suffered far more than their peers.

(more…)

Okay, this will take a bit of explaining. Short version is there will be a hearing on whether the California restrictions on church worship services are constitutional or not.

Longer version is Harvest Rock Church sued the state of California over restrictions on worship services. The District Court for the Center District of California ruled against the church. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to issue an injunction upon the church’s appeal.

(more…)

If our ruling overlords continue on their current path, I’ll have to order an extra terabyte of pixels to keep covering them.

I’m about to exhaust my quarterly budget of pixels covering the flaming hypocrites who don’t bother to follow the rules to which you and I must bend the knee.

(Bending the knee is a medieval practice of getting down on your knee in front of the monarch to show you are meekly submissive to his unquestionable, divine authority.)

 

If my ridicule is dripping off your screen and you can hear through your speakers what vaguely sounds like my laughter, you know the rest of this post will discuss the foolishness of those high and mighty leaders who have taken it upon themselves to decide how we must live our life.

Please join me in laughing at the following:

• Another French Laundry party.
• Mayor chastises citizens for leaving the house…while he is vacationing in Cabo. He also can’t quite recall whether he got a Covid test upon his return and he “generally quarantined” when he got back.
• Judge signs order to extend pandemic restrictions then immediately goes to his grandson’s birthday party because he misses the little guy. Earns a Class C misdemeanor conviction for ignoring his own court order.

I will dial back the ridicule for the rest of this post.  Of course, since the above mayor is my role model for today, the pointing-and-laughing will be “generally” dialed back only those times I “recall” making said plan.

 

Rich hypocrite, French Laundry edition:

12/1/20 – San Francisco Chronicle – S.F. Mayor London Breed had her own French Laundry party – the night after Gavin Newsom’s – The “rules for thee but not for me” stories keep surfacing.

This time it is San Francisco Mayor London Breed who also attended a private dinner party at the ultra-elite French Laundry, with eight people attending in total. Presumably that is four households.

(more…)

A majority of the Justices actually read the Constitution and realized the First Amendment was still there, including something about free expression of religion.

After re-reading those odd comments, they realized it was an attack on the U.S. Constitution when the New York governor picked a spot on the map and said within that area indoor worship services must be limited to 10 people. Thus they issued an injunction against the state pending a full trial on the merits of the case.

The limit of 10 is a particular burden for the Orthodox Jewish congregations who filed the litigation. For a routine worship service, Orthodox Jews require 10 adult males be present. See Minyan explanation at Wikipedia.

This means that under the arbitrary rules issued by the state, an orthodox congregation could meet but no women, no children, and no men beyond the quorum of 10 could participate in the worship.

In essence, Orthodox Jewish congregations may not worship. Sure does seem like that would be an infringement on free expression.

(more…)

I am confident another dozen or two stories have surfaced in the last few days like the following items. These three are merely the ones that jumped out at me as I was scanning various news sources.

Check out the comment at the end of the last article showing that there is at least one politician in the entire country who is starting to realize this flaming hypocrisy could possibly, perhaps, maybe, eventually have an impact on the trust we serfs have in our masters, the ruling caste.

11/25/20 – WCVB 5 – Hours after asking residents to stay home, Denver Mayor flies out of state for Thanksgiving holiday – The day before Thanksgiving Denver Mayor Michael Hancock sent a tweet telling everyone the spread of the coronavirus can be reduced by avoiding travel over the Thanksgiving holiday.

Separately, the city sent a tweet urging people to celebrate with only immediate household. The embedded video also urged avoiding all travel – don’t go see any family or any friends. Don’t fly. Don’t drive.

So what did the mayor do the same day those messages went out?

(more…)

Details are leaking out every few days on the California governor’s dinner party he said was held outside when the rest of us have been told not to eat inside and not to have more than three households present for a meal and to make sure we wear our masks between bites of food.

There is a deeper issue than merely the flaming hypocrisy of leaders demanding we follow harsh rules while blatantly ignoring the rules themselves.

The real issue is the governor and his friends (including at least three lobbyists) made a self-assessment of the risks to themselves of going out to dinner with a group of at least five other couples. They concluded that was an acceptable risk to given their age and health.

Good for them. They have the ability to make decisions for themselves as to what is acceptable or what is too risky.

The serious, freedom-threatening issue is you and I should be able to do the same thing.

We should be able to decide for ourselves what is an acceptable risk and what is unacceptable.

 

Here is a listing of the coverage by your humble correspondent:

(more…)

Hard to believe, but details get worse every few days about the governor’s “outside” inside dinner with more than 12 people and no masks in sight.

Looks like we need to increase the estimated cost for the meal.

A reporter for California Globe reports on 11/23/20: Gov. Gavin Newsom’s “Dinnergate” Apology Grows From Little White Lie to Whopper.

Last tidbit at the bottom of this post:  some of the people at the party are laughing at you and me.

New info on size of dinner party and bar tab

The article pulls together a variety of information from other reporters.

One reporter, who lives in the town where the French Laundry is located, did some digging. He is hearing stories that the bar tab was $15,000 for the party.

(more…)

(Dark humor alert:  Sarcasm is not a healthy form of humor. Sometimes though, a healthy dose of ridicule accompanied by pointing and laughing is necessary to emphasize the ridiculousness of something. So, check out the following research…)

 

Breathtaking reports on social media claim there is scientific proof that the Sturgis motorcycle rally was a massive super spreader event.

Solid evidence.

Incontrovertible proof I tell you.

Study is described at Wall Street Journal on 11/21/20: CDC Study Links Sturgis Motorcycle Rally to Covid-19 Spread in Minnesota. Hosts of other news sites are doing their own re-write of the story.

Guesses are somewhere around 460,000 people attended the huge motorcycle rally held every year in Sturgis, South Dakota. This year it ran from August 7-16.

The lack of mask usage, the closeness of the event, and massive number of people was dangerous I tell you.

Coverage at the time and headlines now say this was obviously a super spreader event that would obviously cause 7 or 8 gazillion infections and just over half a bazillion deaths.

CDC research shows there, uh, weren’t, uh, quite that many infections.

(more…)