Five justices endorsed the "most favored nation" theory of free exercise—that the presence of ANY secular exemption to a law triggers strict scrutiny when that law is applied to religious exercise. This is basically the end of Employment Division v. Smith.https://t.co/IEQd9IWM4a

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC

Jason Willick
@jawillick
A fundamental divide: conservative judges are more likely to defer to legislators; liberal judges to experts. //

Yes, conservative judges do defer to the protective confines of the constitution and not the arbitrary and unaccountable edicts of the “experts.” Every atrocity in human history has had an “expert” standing beside leadership endorsing the action about to be taken. The idea that we should hand over our governance to “experts,” making them preeminent to the actual Constitution is an idea so insane that it makes me think a national break-up might actually be a good idea. How does a country even survive with so many of its citizens holding such a position?

But really, what does the fact that all the liberal judges on the court agreed with the ban say? I think it says that we are a few Supreme Court appointments by a Democrat away from having absolutely no liberty at all. If a state can simply decide you can’t go to church, then what is left, exactly? Because they can dang sure declare an “emergency” and arbitrarily decide you don’t get to have guns either. They can certainly suppress speech under that standard for the greater good as well. //

For every Never Trumper out there who didn't think Trump's term was worth it, had he not been elected, SCOTUS would have decided last night that a state can just stop people from going to church while allowing celebrity book signings. Your decorum wasn't gonna save you. https://t.co/YSStLCWMnS

— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate)