Justice raises alarms about intolerance & government overreach over a virus

2
498

It’s not dark yet, but it’s getting there.

~ a Nobel Laureate

Supreme Court Justice Alito is raising alarms over growing intolerance that allows the government to rob individuals of their personal liberties during a pandemic.

He warned that Religious liberty and free speech are among Americans’ personal freedoms potentially imperiled along with government overreach during the coronavirus pandemic.

“Tolerance for opposing views is now in short supply,” Alito added in a virtual keynote speech to a conference of the conservative Federalist Society. He also referenced the current state of discourse in the nation’s law schools and the “broader academic community.”

Many recent law school graduates claim they face “harassment” and “retaliation” “over and over” if they say anything that departs “from law school orthodoxy,” Alito said.

The law has been going in the direction of giving officials tremendous discretion, and the pandemic has opened the door to potential abuses. A pandemic cannot restrict our fundamental liberties.  A 1905 court case had a minimal reach. Yet, it is being cited in a far-more wide-ranging attempt to limit individual liberties. Religious rights, in particular, is becoming an unfavorable right. He made a note of the Little Sisters of the Poor.

He discussed the disparate treatment of religious gatherings after about 35 minutes. He said it is in danger of becoming a second-class right.

Justice Alito also elaborated on the censorship over COVID that is unprecedented.

Alito, 70, was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court by President George W. Bush on October 31, 2005, and has served since January 31, 2006.

Watch:

PowerInbox
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

2 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Greg
Guest
Greg
3 years ago

The 1905 Jacobson v. Mass. has reached into other areas. After that decision, opponents had this to say:

“We have repudiated religious tyranny; we have rejected political tyranny; shall we now submit to medical tyranny?”

That case has been used as a “baseline” for other cases. In the case of Buck v. Bell it allowed the permitting of “compulsory sterilization” of the unfit such as “intellectually disabled”. This case has never been overturned. It allowed the Eugenics movement to be legitimized.

In Prince v. Mass. it gave government authority over parents, in that their authority is not absolute. The case involved parents distributing religious literature.

Recently, the Fifth Circuit relied on Jacobson upholding a ban on non-essential medical services and surgeries. In light of the new vaccine development, this same decision could be the basis for country-wide forced vaccinations on the public.

wheelie1952
Member
wheelie1952
3 years ago

The Left is using the virus to control citizens in every way possible curtailing rights/liberties.