« Hannity

Supreme Court delivers a blow to Cuomo's COVID overreach

2020-11-27 | 🔗
Religious leaders praise Supreme Court's decision to block Cuomo's COVID restrictions.
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Or call 1 877 866 8555 welcome back to a welcome back to a special edition of Hannity, very big win for religious liberty. This week after the Supreme Court ruled against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and his draconian attendance restrictions on houses of worship in a five to four decision which included newly appointed justice, Amy Coney Barrett. In the majority, the court found that the governors actions trampled on the first amendment guarantee of the exercise of religion. In his concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch exposed moral hypocrisy. Writing. It is time, past time to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world on which the Constitution Toler rates, color, coded executive, edigits that reopen liquor stores and bike shops, but shutter churches, synagogues and mosques. Bravo, sir, but rather than take responsibility for his unconstitutional action, Governor Cuomo lashed out at the
court telling reporters the Supreme Court made a ruling its more illustrative of the Supreme Court than anything else praised. The rule. Reverend Franklin Graham thanked the justices for standing up for religious liberty. Cardinal Dolan tweeted. Our churches are essential. How did the left act by spewing? More rage, hate and hysteria at the five justices and specifically Justice Barrett, for example, failed Obama, adviser Ben Rhodes, call the decision illegitimate and New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman claimed the decision would get people killed and other unhinged leftist expressed their ire by tweeting out Amy, Covid, Barrett ha ha ha joining me now for reaction, Fox NEWS, contributor, Rachel Campos Duffy, along with Fox NEWS, analyst Gregg, Jarrett and
relatable podcast host AL. Will he Beth Stuckey, certainly the name of your podcast appropriate because you are relatable. Thank you. I want to start with you all of the regulars and norms and not that Rachel and Gregg arent, but all of US normals knew this was unconstitutional. We knew it was a slap in the face first amendment. It was the reason why it was placed there because they nigh knew the old world were always going to clamp down on religious liberty. That was the problem. Is that how you saw this? Was this decision a surprise to you? Yes and I love reading both Gulch and Kavanaughs argument in the concurrent here and Gulch laid it out so perfectly he said. Look we understand if the state has a compelling interest. There may be very narrow restrictions that they place on gatherings, but what we saw in the case of Cuomo is that he was discriminating against these religious institutions in a way he was not discriminated against
secular institutions like bike shops and other place, and though that is clearly a violation of the first amendment and almost seemed like there was a malicious intent behind it and im so glad that Gulch not only laided out that argument, but also discounted. The argument of the dissent on the court, which included someone who we used to believe, was a conservative justice Roberts who basically didnt want to rule on this because they said look. This is not even relevant anymore. They decided to move these institutions out of the zone, but the fact of the matter is these institutions need that protection, because the executive order is still in place well that indeed and Gregg while it was about a New York situation, fact, is that the Supreme Court and its decisions impact the country as a whole. Can you explain how that would work in this kind of an instance? Clearly they have spoken about their, how they view these kinds of separate decisions against churches, places of
worship versus liquor stores and bike shops, so it does move nationally, doesnt it. It sets a strong precedents for future cases. This was actually a very easy and obvious case with Cuomo and Newsom, and other governors have done is not just a violation of the first amendment: freedom of religion, its also a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution have to treat people and businesses equally great point: its okay to shop at a grocery store or liquor store, but not okay to worship in a church or a synagogue or a mosque, its okay in the Nevada to play blackjack and craps at a casino. But it is not okay to worship your religion, so Gulch was right. There is no world in the constitution in which that is permissible, and yet these liberal justices, who you would think, would be the first people who would say we have to treat people equally
exactly ignore the constitution completely. They say this is going to exacerbate human suffering in America. Where is the science for that? If people in church wear masks and social distance the same way they do at offices and factories at supermarkets and pharmacies and book stores and hair salons, then, logically, the risk is identical, so it was a silly and obtuse argument by the liberal justices and you also notice Rachel already. We have some concern about legitimacy of government and one of the reasons Trump was elected was for law and order and fairness that everyone would see the same kind of justice, and yet you would kind of see you have to think that. Maybe you have to think that maybe liquor store owners or casinos have or MR money, the politicians dont want to hurt them the people in the mosque or the temple they are not greasing our palms. So much
is that your kind of sense of you who this all unfolded in a very kind of twilight Zone, way about what was restricted and what wasnt yeah it was interesting. You saw that things that liberals like to do seemed to not be such a big public health hazard and things that Republicans and conservatives like to do like go to church and open schools. You know that didnt work so yeah and also common sense. I mean I would suggest to you Tammy that there are probably more germs and covid transmission at a strip club than at church. No, there is a lot going on there. Cardinal Dolan came out and congratulated thinks decision. Ironically, his boss, the Pope, put an op ed, Nut New York Times which, which he basically threw dollan and every other Catholic. Under the bus who have been concerned about religious liberty, been violated, he wrote an op ed. Protecting this or standing up for these
rights is selfish. He mentioned climate change twice, never mentioned religious liberty and basically pair routed, a bunch of globalist slogans like build back better and whatnot. Amazing, not everybody in the church community is on page here I would say most common sense. Americans, people of faith know that a lot of people miss going to church. A lot of elderly are not dying of covid. Many of them are dying of loneliness and miss their faith, communities good on the Supreme Court and congratulations im so thankful to Donald Trump for putting those we see. These kind of decisions are now and how they have an impact, because clearly this is key. We have a lot of work to do, obviously in the years to come, because the human condition is the fragile one when its good that weve got this kind of decision. Considering the kind of year.
Transcript generated on 2020-11-29.