Thread by @LemieuxLGM

You knew this was coming

https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1331826974432649218

As Sotomayor says, the majority's argument that places of worship are being singled out for unfair treatment requires treating highly dissimilar things as similar.

Gorsuch's concurrence typifies the tendency of too many people -- across the political spectrum -- to base restrictions based on moral institution rather than epidemiological dangers. Going to church is more moral than going to the liquor store, so it must be at least as safe.

I don't know about you but I don't recall lingering in a liquor store for an hour in close static proximity with other people, occasionally pausing to break into song

Sotomayor goes on to make a similar point, pointing out the dangers of judges with no expertise second-guessing people who do during a public health emergency

The majority asserts that the regulation is subject to strict scrutiny because it contains a classification for places of worship, but religious institutions are treated MORE FAVORABLY than comparable secular ones!

And just to make the bad faith clear we have three members of the Korematsu II majority and two who almost certainly would have joined it suddenly concluding that the statements of public officials ARE material to determining whether a policy is discriminatory

In conclusion, an extremely partisan Supreme Court supermajority representing a coalition that has won the popular vote one (1) time since 1988 is preventing governors from issuing public health orders during a pandemic.

*moral intuition