 |  |  |
| 0:00 | -1:14:44 |
Over Thanksgiving break, the Supreme Court struck down New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s strict coronavirus related occupancy limits to 10 or 25 worshipers in churches and synagogues located in orange and red zones in the state. In a 5-4 per curiam decision, the majority sided with Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel, who argued that Cuomo’s COVID-19 regulations treated houses of worship differently from comparable secular institutions, especially considering the religious plaintiffs in question went above and beyond in preventing COVID-19 outbreaks within their doors.
“From the standpoint of the plaintiffs,” David argues, “it’s sort of a double whammy of good facts. One, expressions of animus from public officials and hypocrisy from public officials. And two, they’re coming to the court with clean hands.” Later in the episode, David and Sarah also dive into a host of abortion related lawsuits and the U.S. census case before ending with some thoughts on election litigation.
Show Notes:
-Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor of New York, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
| 24 | 37 |
David, I believe the German word you were looking for is Fremdscham.
Oof. Just oof. So I'd consider myself a conservatarian-type who supports funding for both PP and crisis pregnancy centers. But just like I support the police AND think the bad apples need rooted out / positive reforms are needed, so to do I think that the bad apples at PP need rooting out and there need to be reforms to protect against what are CLEARLY greed-driven abhorrant behaviors.
As a scientist, I don't really know how we get around the need for embryonic stem cells for some of the cutting edge work that is done, even if IPSCs are a pretty solid alternative, they can't fully replace ESCs in some cases. But I also think there is a more moral way to go about using them.
Side note on the arguments for the Trump v NY case, the most compelling, or at least certainly the most well-articulated, arguments seemed to be from the ACLU lawyer Dale Ho.