Scientifically, there should be a single consistent standard.

As long as that is true, it's fine.

Cuomo's standard was neither consistent nor scientific. That is a clear first amendment violation.

Gorsuch is SCIENTIFICALLY RIGHT HERE.

If people can't admit that, then they are allowing their biases to show.

https://t.co/WiYtikuOXi
This on the other hand is 100% BS.

Not a single scientist I know supports this double standard. The best ones know that the type ofvenue is irrelevant... Only the size and # of people matter.

https://t.co/YmjlopdbD3
In short, it is the LEFT here using religious bias to promote an antiscientific standard and allowing the State to violate Rights.

The Liberals and CJJR should be ashamed.
Another good thread here.

A consistent standard would have passed constitutional muster.

https://t.co/j3pxMH8Mz4
And, always read @JoshMBlackman...

https://t.co/dr2GZGvhx9
"Robert's South Bay concurrence is no longer a super-precedent...courts had cited it 114 times in the past six months. But Diocese will likely be the last citation. Courts can no longer look to the Chief's opinion as the definitive statement for pandemic cases."
"I don't think the majority formally repudiates South Bay. Indeed, the Court distinguishes NY's orders from CA order. But going forward, Diocese will be controlling standard. And, when a COVID case reaches the Court on certiorari, I suspect the Chief will join the conservatives."
And God Bless Gorsuch for this. This is something worth giving thanks for.
And more from Gorsuch here:

https://t.co/9D19uILWSt
". . . the State has effectively sought to ban all traditional forms of worship in affected "zones" whenever the Governor decrees and for as long as he chooses. Nothing in Jacobson purported to address, let alone approve, such serious and long-lasting intrusions..."
The arguments between Gorsuch and Roberts are fascinating here. I think ultimately, Roberts will have to concede the point to Gorsuch (who has the majority on his side now), but a fascinating insight into the Court, nonetheless.

More from Politics

You May Also Like

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.