Government regulations are not neutral when they "treat any comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise," said the majority, noting that "it is no answer that a state treats some comparable...activities as poorly as...the religious exercise at issue."
The U.S. Supreme Court seemed ready on Tuesday to uphold Arizona's restrictive voting laws, setting the stage for what happens in the coming months and years, as Republican-dominated state legislatures seek to make voting more difficult.
This is unfortunate as voting should be as easy as possible to maximize participation, and not to munipulate the output if folks don't agree with the conclusions.
The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily barred New York from enforcing strict attendance limits on places of worship in areas designated coronavirus hot spots, in a decision released late Wednesday.
The court ruled that Gov. Andrew Cuomo's executive order violated the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause, and actively discriminated against religious institutions.
"The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty," the unsigned majority decision read.
While on the 7th Circuit, Barrett wrote that the Second Amendment did not necessarily ban people convicted of felonies from owning a gun. She declared a Wisconsin law, barring anyone convicted of a felony even if they aren't convicted of a violent crime, to be unconstitutional.
"[L]egislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous,"
I think she could be really good on the second amendment. On other issues she might be a wait and see. That said, I'm not the President nor am I sitting US Senator so I don't have much say in the matter. I do think we should wait until after the presidential election to pick the next Supreme Court Justice but I think she probably will be okay.