Corona Virus: It's a Marathon, Not a Sprint

[Daehawk]

I dont get the billboard and the names thing. I know who is on the billboard and its to promote masks but whats with the silly texts?

[Isgrimnur]

[LordMortis]

Having never heard of a Pork Roll or Taylor Ham what is the difference between it and what McDonald's try to pass as Canadian Bacon?

[Blackhawk]

Michelle said that last night the emergency room was full, and that it was 100% suspected COVID-19 patients.

And tonight they have COVID patients sitting in the hallways because they're out of room.

[Smoove_B]

Having never heard of a Pork Roll or Taylor Ham what is the difference between it and what McDonald's try to pass as Canadian Bacon?

Get educated, son:

The New Jersey entity that goes by the moniker pork roll or Taylor ham is neither roll nor ham. Locals say it’s more like sausage—though it tastes unlike any other breakfast meat—and definitely better than Spam.

Pork roll is a sliceable slab of pork product, sugar, spices, and salt that gets processed, smoked, packaged, and sold in New Jersey. The meat comes fully cooked, but enthusiasts typically cut off slices (making four notches around the edges to prevent curling) and fry it into hot, smokey goodness. Where the rest of the country relies on bacon and sausage for breakfast sandwiches, restaurants in Jersey often feature egg-and-cheeses brimming with griddled pork roll slices instead.

But the term pork roll is uttered only in southern New Jersey. Farther north, it’s called “Taylor ham,” which refers to the first purveyor of the porcine treat. Pork roll is a generic term for the same product, which hasn’t been labeled “Taylor ham” for more than 110 years.

Huuuuuuge divide in our state over what to call it. But we all agree - wear a friggin' mask.

[LordMortis]

Kinda like this, no?



Also weird to listen to NJ argue about what to call something when somehow you think Chicken Parm implies sandwich.

[Isgrimnur]

Taylor originally released the product under the name "Taylor's Prepared Ham", but was forced to change the name after it failed to meet the new legal definition of "ham" established by the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906.

[Isgrimnur]

Larry Olmsted of USA Today has described the taste of the meat as "a cross between Canadian bacon and bacon, less hammy and smoky than Canadian, fattier and saltier than bacon, with a unique texture, both crispy and slightly mushy.

[malchior]

It is a pure slice of NJ awesomeness. IMO pork roll is the product. Taylor is a brand of pork roll.

[LordMortis]

Larry Olmsted of USA Today has described the taste of the meat as "a cross between Canadian bacon and bacon, less hammy and smoky than Canadian, fattier and saltier than bacon, with a unique texture, both crispy and slightly mushy.

Are you describing what McD refers to as Canadian Bacon or this thing called a Pork Roll?

edit this is apparently a topic in New Jersey and one that is cause for a lot of post to be removed for violating policy

https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g ... ersey.html

[Isgrimnur]

The quote is about pork roll.

[Smoove_B]

It is a pure slice of NJ awesomeness. IMO pork roll is the product. Taylor is a brand of pork roll.

See? This is what I'm saying. It's a friggin Taylor ham, egg and cheese sandwich. Salt/Pepper/Ketchup.

If you didn't think I could make this thread even more bizarre, let's all get our COVID-19 information from Yankee Candles and the people complaining about how their purchases have little to no scent.

[Isgrimnur]

[malchior]

It is a pure slice of NJ awesomeness. IMO pork roll is the product. Taylor is a brand of pork roll.

See? This is what I'm saying. It's a friggin Taylor ham, egg and cheese sandwich. Salt/Pepper/Ketchup.

What happens when it is some off-brand garbage? Saying taylor ham and getting *not Taylor-brand pork roll* ruins days.

If you didn't think I could make this thread even more bizarre, let's all get our COVID-19 information from Yankee Candles and the people complaining about how their purchases have little to no scent.

WTF. By the way, I didn't know that was an odd symptom. I've almost always lost my sense of smell during colds and never thought it was odd. My wife says it has never happened to her.

[Daehawk]

Could compromise and call it Taylor Roll or Pork Ham.

[stessier]

AZ vaccine may have issues and certainly a lot of questions.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11 ... questions/

[Z-Corn]

My last boss was from Asbury Park and he used the two terms kind of interchangeably but mostly he called it Taylor ham. We talked about it a lot.

He brought me some from a visit back home. It was salty. That's the flavor I remember most. SALT.

I ended up throwing it in the backyard for the coyotes.

[Daehawk]

[Holman]

This whole page is like something out of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

Especially if you read it aloud, as I just did.

[Kraken]

I'm waiting to see the results get peer reviewed, and I'll consult my doctor, but I imagine by the time they become widely available, I'll be ready to take a vaccine.

I'll be comfortable with it after I see millions of other people vaccinated without consequences. When they rapidly scale up from a few tens of thousands to tens of millions, they're bound to generate new data.

By the time the mRNA vaccine becomes widely available, the AstraZeneca and J&J recombinant vector vaccines should be on the market. People might be more comfortable with those types of vaccines, since the methodology has been in place for decades.

I'm holding out for the sugar cube version.

[$iljanus]

Well, this Supreme Court decision went against previous decisions regarding restrictions on religious gatherings. I wonder what changed between now and then...

Splitting 5 to 4, Supreme Court Backs Religious Challenge to Cuomo’s Virus Shutdown Order
Justice Amy Coney Barrett played a decisive role in the decision, which took the opposite approach of earlier court rulings related to coronavirus restrictions in California and Nevada.

Religious services have been documented as superspreader events. But why let that get in the way of people gathering together in the spirit of loving their neighbors by infecting their neighbors? Our church hasn’t met in person since MA started their restrictions because of our concerns for our neighbor and we have managed to practice our faith.

Justice Gorsuch:

“It is time — past time — to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues and mosques,” Justice Gorsuch wrote.

Justice Sotomayor:

”Free religious exercise is one of our most treasured and jealously guarded constitutional rights,” she wrote. “States may not discriminate against religious institutions, even when faced with a crisis as deadly as this one. But those principles are not at stake today.”

“The Constitution does not forbid states from responding to public health crises through regulations that treat religious institutions equally or more favorably than comparable secular institutions, particularly when those regulations save lives,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. “Because New York’s Covid-19 restrictions do just that, I respectfully dissent.”

And some of the arguments made before the court:

In asking the Supreme Court to step in, lawyers for the diocese argued that its “spacious churches” were safer than many “secular businesses that can open without restrictions, such as pet stores and broker’s offices and banks and bodegas.” An hourlong Mass, the diocese’s brief said, is “shorter than many trips to a supermarket or big-box store, not to mention a 9-to-5 job.”

Ms. Underwood responded that religious services pose special risks. “There is a documented history of religious gatherings serving as Covid-19 superspreader events,” she wrote.
Indoor religious services, Ms. Underwood wrote, “tend to involve large numbers of people from different households arriving simultaneously; congregating as an audience for an extended period of time to talk, sing or chant; and then leaving simultaneously — as well as the possibility that participants will mingle in close proximity throughout.”

Still, she wrote, religious services are subject to fewer restrictions than comparable secular ones. “Among other things, in both red and orange zones, casinos, bowling alleys, arcades, movie theaters and fitness centers are closed completely,” she wrote.

It’s a fucking public health emergency, not an intentional suppression of religion. We just don’t care. I’m so tired of people not getting it in this country.

[raydude]

To borrow from the Shingrix ad:

I want to go to Church and pray to my god

COVID DOESN'T CARE

This is America, I don't have to wear a mask

COVID DOESN'T CARE

We trust the people of South Dakota to do what is needed. No mandates

COVID DOESN'T CARE

[Unagi]

I said it back in March/April...

The word of the year, for 2020, is: Freedumb

[malchior]

Justice Gorsuch:

“It is time — past time — to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues and mosques,” Justice Gorsuch wrote.

He made similar arguments in the Nevada case. When it was a casino I was more moved. A bike shop? It strains credulity to compare these things. People don't go into a bike shop for hours on end to shake hands, sing, and congregate.

It’s a fucking public health emergency, not an intentional suppression of religion. We just don’t care. I’m so tired of people not getting it in this country.

Exactly and it still shouldn't sit well that public health officials are being overridden by wizards sitting in their separate towers all working remotely while the health officials have to do the actual work of keeping people alive. And they have to deal with complete assholes like Gorsuch.

Edit: Just another thought - the worst part is that the case was moot so this effectively is an activist ruling. I'll say it again - when John Roberts is your *moderate* we are under the thumb of a extremist Conservative majority. If this is what we are going to see going forward the legitimacy of the Supreme Court is going to grind away which doesn't do this failing system any favors.

[Daehawk]

People dont go in liquor stores and bike shops and sit for hours on end talking in each others faces while someone in the front of the store yells a lot and a mass of folk sing to you.

Trump's Thanksgiving proclamation was for people to GATHER in their homes and churches with others and celebrate.

If only the stupid would weed themselves out instead of taking so many others with them.

The Supreme Court late Wednesday temporarily blocked Gov. Andrew Cuomo from setting capacity limits at houses of worship in certain state-designated coronavirus hot spots.

Thanks to the new nitwit.

Newly confirmed Justice Amy Coney Barrett cast the deciding assenting vote in favor of the religious groups.

[Max Peck]

Apparently the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine preliminary trial results are problematic.

AstraZeneca manufacturing error raises questions about vaccine study results

AstraZeneca and Oxford University on Wednesday acknowledged a manufacturing error that is raising questions about preliminary results of their experimental COVID-19 vaccine.

A statement describing the error came days after the company and the university described the shots as "highly effective" and made no mention of why some study participants didn't receive as much vaccine in the first of two shots as expected.

In a surprise, the group of volunteers that got a lower dose seemed to be much better protected than the volunteers who got two full doses. In the low-dose group, AstraZeneca said, the vaccine appeared to be 90 per cent effective. In the group that got two full doses, the vaccine appeared to be 62 per cent effective. Combined, the drugmakers said the vaccine appeared to be 70 per cent effective. But the way in which the results were arrived at and reported by the companies has led to pointed questions from experts.

In a statement Wednesday, Oxford University said some of the vials used in the trial didn't have the right concentration of vaccine so some volunteers got a half dose. The university said that it discussed the problem with regulators, and agreed to complete the late-stage trial with two groups. The manufacturing problem has been corrected, according to the statement.

Experts say the relatively small number of people in the low-dose group makes it difficult to know if the effectiveness seen in the group is real or a statistical quirk. Some 2,741 people received a half dose of the vaccine followed by a full dose, AstraZeneca said. A total of 8,895 people received two full doses.

Another factor: none of the people in the low-dose group were over 55 years old. Younger people tend to mount a stronger immune response than older people, so it could be that the youth of the participants in the low-dose group is why it looked more effective, not the size of the dose.

Another point of confusion comes from a decision to pool results from two groups of participants who received different dosing levels to reach an average 70 per cent effectiveness, said David Salisbury, and associate fellow of the global health program at the Chatham House think tank.

"You've taken two studies for which different doses were used and come up with a composite that doesn't represent either of the doses," he said of the figure. "I think many people are having trouble with that."

[RunningMn9]

I ended up throwing it in the backyard for the coyotes.

This is how blood feuds start.

[malchior]

I ended up throwing it in the backyard for the coyotes.

This is how blood feuds start.

Seriously. I cut up chunks this morning to make some Taylor Ham frittatas for breakfast <- note: it was actual Taylor's not Case's or Trenton pork roll.

[Default]

There are two people out at my station. One is a supervisor, one is a letter carrier who works right next to me. There was an announcement last week that there was a positive covid-19 test in the station. They would not identify the person. They had the station disinfected. They also had the trucks disinfected.

Supervisors never drive the trucks. I canceled going to socially distanced Thankgiving with my kids because, in the same stand-up talk to all the staff, revealing the positive case, my boss said, "The reason cases are going up is increased testing."

[malchior]

Early afternoon my MIL law called to try to guilt us to come over. Her brother naturally was coming over but first had to stop at his wife's parents house. Their extended family is there as well. She is pretty angry right now. I'm gutted because everyone is so goddammit selfish and it sucks to see her becoming so tired of being cast as the 'bad kid' because we take this seriously.

[Little Raven]

Edit: Just another thought - the worst part is that the case was moot so this effectively is an activist ruling.

Not even remotely. The Court routinely issues rulings on moot issues when the issue is likely to arise again.

The Court did not disagree that the state has the right to place limits on attendance. The Court asked why the limits on religious venues were so strict, and New York had no good answer for it. Both the NY Catholic Archdiocise and the Ultra Orthodox groups that filed the suit pointed to the fact that they are already following guidance (masks, distancing, etc), and that there have not been any cases or clusters tied to spread at their houses of worship. New York didn't argue either point.

The First Amendment doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room here. Even if there is a compelling government interest behind a restriction, (and everyone agree that there is here) the restriction must be narrowly tailored to achieve the goal, and the religious institution cannot be treated more harshly than comparable secular institutions. New York goofed here, and they acknowledge that, because they ARLREADY revised their limits a few weeks ago, and the Court agreed that the new limits are reasonable. (the new limits are 50% capacity + masks and social distancing) Moreover, the Court explicitly said that New York is free to tighten their limitations, as long as they treat everyone the same. Even the three liberal judges agreed that New York's original limits were too harsh, they just didn't see a need for an injunction in this case.

The Court is working exactly as it should.

[Kraken]

My niece posted a video to Facebook of Joe and Jill Biden calling the ICU nurses at her hospital in Muskegon. They had a pleasant 4-minute conversation consisting mostly of Joe thanking them for their work and asking what they need. IDK how to share a FB video outside of FB or I would try to link it here.

Mind you, the campaign is over, yet Biden chose to spend his Thanksgiving giving thanks. Who knows how many other hospitals he called? What a great gesture -- the ICU staff was thrilled.

[Isgrimnur]

[malchior]

Edit: Just another thought - the worst part is that the case was moot so this effectively is an activist ruling.

Not even remotely. The Court routinely issues rulings on moot issues when the issue is likely to arise again.

Actually Roberts specifically talked about how this was unnecessary and the ruling was a food fight. They had issued 2 rulings already. The only difference is the composition of the court. This was exactly what we predicted would happen. This was anything but routine. The NY Times piece described it this way -

On Wednesday, Justice Barrett dealt the chief justice a body blow. She cast the decisive vote in a 5-to-4 ruling that rejected restrictions on religious services in New York imposed by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo to combat the coronavirus, shoving the chief justice into dissent with the court’s three remaining liberals. It was one of six opinions the court issued on Wednesday, spanning 33 pages and opening a window on a court in turmoil.

The ruling was at odds with earlier ones in cases from California and Nevada issued before Justice Ginsburg’s death in September. Those decisions upheld restrictions on church services by 5-to-4 votes, with Chief Justice Roberts in the majority. The New York decision said that Mr. Cuomo’s strict virus limits — capping attendance at religious services at 10 people in “red zones” where risk was highest, and at 25 in slightly less dangerous “orange zones” — violated the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion.

The Court did not disagree that the state has the right to place limits on attendance. The Court asked why the limits on religious venues were so strict, and New York had no good answer for it. Both the NY Catholic Archdiocise and the Ultra Orthodox groups that filed the suit pointed to the fact that they are already following guidance (masks, distancing, etc), and that there have not been any cases or clusters tied to spread at their houses of worship. New York didn't argue either point.

Wrong. They were assembled to address an outbreak specifically. In fact Cumo bitterly responded that they think they contained the outbreak with similar restrictions. But what does he know.

The case’s immediate impact was narrow, setting aside two specific restrictions on attendance at houses of worship — regardless of denomination — that Mr. Cuomo enacted in early October. Those rules were put in place after a surge of cases in several Orthodox Jewish communities in Brooklyn, Queens and two suburban counties.

The First Amendment doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room here. Even if there is a compelling government interest behind a restriction, (and everyone agree that there is here) the restriction must be narrowly tailored to achieve the goal, and the religious institution cannot be treated more harshly than comparable secular institutions. New York goofed here, and they acknowledge that, because they ARLREADY revised their limits a few weeks ago, and the Court agreed that the new limits are reasonable. (the new limits are 50% capacity + masks and social distancing) Moreover, the Court explicitly said that New York is free to tighten their limitations, as long as they treat everyone the same. Even the three liberal judges agreed that New York's original limits were too harsh, they just didn't see a need for an injunction in this case.

So what? They drafted rules and once challenged pulled them back. The justices decided to take their majority for spin to make a point. The arguments didn't change. The vote changed. Essentially policy of the United States just flipped based on Federalist credentials from one month to the next. That is *not conservative* values. That is activism.

[Z-Corn]

I ended up throwing it in the backyard for the coyotes.

This is how blood feuds start.

Oh don't worry, they didn't eat it!

Eventually the pork roll melted into the earth and nothing has grown there since.

[Little Raven]

Wrong. They were assembled to address an outbreak specifically. In fact Cumo bitterly responded that they think they contained the outbreak with similar restrictions. But what does he know.

What's wrong? New York was unable to point to a single superspreader event at a Catholic or Orthadox church in New York. Cuomo is free to think whatever he likes, but his legal team declined to produce actual evidence.

So what?

So this is what the Court is FOR - to keep governments from overreaching. New York did, and they got their hand slapped, as they should. The Court offered plenty of guidance on how New York can proceed in the future WITHOUT running afoul of the Constitution. The system is working as designed.

edit - I'm not saying you should AGREE with the ruling, just that there's nothing about the procedure here that is at all unusual for the Court.

[malchior]

Wrong. They were assembled to address an outbreak specifically. In fact Cumo bitterly responded that they think they contained the outbreak with similar restrictions. But what does he know.

What's wrong? New York was unable to point to a single superspreader event at a Catholic or Orthadox church in New York. Cuomo is free to think whatever he likes, but his legal team declined to produce actual evidence.

They didn't argue that. They presented epidemiological science as evidence about why they wanted to impose that restrictions. They convinced the District Court that it was based on discrete scientific predictions and their first-hand knowledge of the community and its requirements as noted in the Sotomayor dissent (below). It just so happens that the outbreaks confirmed the necessity of the regulation after the case was argued -- as the 2nd NY Times focused on the Cuomo piece documents.

After receiving evidence and hearing witness testimony, the District Court in the Diocese’s case found that New York’s regulations were “crafted based on science and for epidemiological purposes.” ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___, 2020 WL 6120167, *10 (EDNY, Oct. 16, 2020). It wrote that they treated “religious gatherings . . . more favorably than similar gatherings” with comparable risks, such as “public lectures, concerts or theatrical performances.” Id., at *9. The court also recognized the Diocese’s argument that the regulations treated religious gatherings less favorably than what the State has called “essential businesses,” including, for example, grocery stores and banks. Ibid. But the court found these essential businesses to be distinguishable from religious services and declined to “second guess the State’s judgment about what should qualify as an essential business.” Ibid. The District Court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction

That said, the main argument that NY State raised at the SCOTUS orals was that the issue was mooted. Again the SCOTUS picked out the details of what was different between this case and California/Nevada and then hung their activist ruling on it.

So this is what the Court is FOR - to keep governments from overreaching. New York did, and they got their hand slapped, as they should. The Court offered plenty of guidance on how New York can proceed in the future WITHOUT running afoul of the Constitution. The system is working as designed.

I don't disagree in general that is the case but that isn't what happened here. You are ignoring the context. There were already two cases this year that wrestled with this issue and they weren't too dissimilar to the NY case. As I noted there were differences that they hung their ruling on. Roberts even went out of his way to wag his finger and say this was totally unnecessary while acknowledging those differences because he is trying to build bridges between the factions. His dissent read a lot like a guy trying to settle down a dispute that is getting hotter and hotter. It is starting to look a whole lot like the dysfunction we see outside the Court. In fact, it appears he keenly knows that this makes the court looks politicized. In light of the Barrett confirmation, it still appears that the main practical difference between the outcomes in the three cases is slight language tweaks *and* more importantly the composition of the court. Again quoting the NY Times to get back to the big picture context and what it means:

The ruling was at odds with earlier ones in cases from California and Nevada issued before Justice Ginsburg’s death in September. Those decisions upheld restrictions on church services by 5-to-4 votes, with Chief Justice Roberts in the majority. The New York decision said that Mr. Cuomo’s strict virus limits — capping attendance at religious services at 10 people in “red zones” where risk was highest, and at 25 in slightly less dangerous “orange zones” — violated the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion.

Wednesday’s ruling was almost certainly a taste of things to come. While Justice Ginsburg was alive, Chief Justice Roberts voted with the court’s four-member liberal wing in cases striking down a restrictive Louisiana abortion law, blocking a Trump administration initiative that would have rolled back protections for young immigrants known as Dreamers, refusing to allow a question on citizenship to be added to the census and saving the Affordable Care Act.

This case is a solid indicator that predictions made that this SCOTUS majority will eventually make a ruling that will set off a firestorm were right. It looks inevitable at the moment. When looked at in the wider context, this court couldn't resist putting their thumb on the scale even when it was totally unnecessary.

[Little Raven]

That said, the main argument that NY State raised at the SCOTUS orals was that the issue was mooted. Again the SCOTUS picked out the details of what was different between this case and California/Nevada and then hung their activist ruling on it.

I confess I'm not sorry to see New York get its hand slapped here. The state pulls this kind of crap a LOT....they pass a law that is blatantly unconstitutional and then rescind it if it looks like a Court is actually going to call them on it. That's a bad habit for a state to develop, and I have no problem with the Court reminding them that it's not cool.

I don't disagree in general that is the case but that isn't what happened here.

That's absolutely what happened here, in terms of the ruling. You're looking past the ruling into what's going on behind the scenes, which is perfectly cool and fun, but in terms of the actual ruling, what happened is that the Court reminded New York that the Constitution applies even during a pandemic. Cuomo will be mildly miffed for a week but nothing on the ground is actually going to change, though this will probably affect how local governments draft regulations going forward.

This case is a solid indicator that predictions made that this SCOTUS majority will eventually make a ruling that will set off a firestorm were right.

Oh, probably. This is a new court, after all. We should expect changes.

When looked at in the wider context, this court couldn't resist putting their thumb on the scale even when it was totally unnecessary.

Reasonable people can disagree about what is necessary. (as they evidently do here) Gorsuch believes “We may not shelter in place when the Constitution is under attack...Things never go well when we do.” Roberts disagrees. Ultimately, Gorsuch proved the more convincing among the Nine...this time, anyway.

[Little Raven]

The Atlantic explains why Thanksgiving dinner is verboten but eating in restaurants is cool. (hint: follow the money)

Because the state and city had reopened restaurants, Josh, who asked to be identified only by his first name to protect his privacy, assumed that local health officials had figured out a patchwork of precautions that would make indoor dining safe. He and his fiancé had even gone one extra step, making a Google Map of places they knew were being particularly strict with temperature checks. They were listening to the people they were told to listen to—New York Governor Andrew Cuomo recently released a book about how to control the pandemic—and following all the rules.

Josh was irritated, but not because of me. If indoor dining couldn’t be made safe, he wondered, why were people being encouraged to do it? Why were temperature checks being required if they actually weren’t useful? Why make rules that don’t keep people safe?

Across America, this type of honest confusion abounds. While a misinformation-gorged segment of the population rejects the expert consensus on virus safety outright, so many other people, like Josh, are trying to do everything right, but run afoul of science without realizing it. Often, safety protocols, of all things, are what’s misleading them. In the country’s new devastating wave of infections, a perilous gap exists between the realities of transmission and the rules implemented to prevent it. “When health authorities present one rule after another without clear, science-based substantiation, their advice ends up seeming arbitrary and capricious,” the science journalist Roxanne Khamsi recently wrote in Wired. “That erodes public trust and makes it harder to implement rules that do make sense.” Experts know what has to be done to keep people safe, but confusing policies and tangled messages from some of the country’s most celebrated local leaders are setting people up to die.

[malchior]

That said, the main argument that NY State raised at the SCOTUS orals was that the issue was mooted. Again the SCOTUS picked out the details of what was different between this case and California/Nevada and then hung their activist ruling on it.

I confess I'm not sorry to see New York get its hand slapped here. The state pulls this kind of crap a LOT....they pass a law that is blatantly unconstitutional and then rescind it if it looks like a Court is actually going to call them on it. That's a bad habit for a state to develop, and I have no problem with the Court reminding them that it's not cool.

One other time is *a lot*? Come on. In any case, again the context here is the key. They pulled back because they are predicting how the court is going to rule. This is partially a consequence of the politicization of SCOTUS. States are now playing footsie trying to feel out the rules. That seems rational if we accept that the court has become heavily politicized now. Based on this ruling I feel confident we will see significantly political decisions this year or perhaps as far out as next session when Biden's policies are in full swing.

I don't disagree in general that is the case but that isn't what happened here.

That's absolutely what happened here, in terms of the ruling. You're looking past the ruling into what's going on behind the scenes, which is perfectly cool and fun, but in terms of the actual ruling, what happened is that the Court reminded New York that the Constitution applies even during a pandemic. Cuomo will be mildly miffed for a week but nothing on the ground is actually going to change, though this will probably affect how local governments draft regulations going forward.

This is highly unpersuasive. I'm not looking past the ruling. I'm literally quoting blocks of the ACTUAL RULING and analysis arguing why it isn't what you say it is. In fact, what you are saying pretty much flies in the face of what the experts are saying.

This case is a solid indicator that predictions made that this SCOTUS majority will eventually make a ruling that will set off a firestorm were right.

Oh, probably. This is a new court, after all. We should expect changes.

I'm not saying changes. I'm saying corrosive rulings that'll continue to be corrosive to national unity. It might not be as damaging as overturning Roe v Wade but something significant. As some have said they have essentially achieved their goals already with Roe but *this ruling* gives us a hint that they might dare.

As I said, they couldn't resist doing this even though it was meaningless. Gorsuch in particular threw barbs at Roberts about the previous COVID-19 cases. Many court watchers were a bit surprised about how rancorous this opinion was and the forces at play. Again those are all things *in the ruling* that aren't "behind the scenes". You can read them in the ruling. Over this year, we've seen spats like this in rulings. In other words, they are beginning to fight battles in public. That isn't a good sign.

Reasonable people can disagree about what is necessary. (as they evidently do here) Gorsuch believes “We may not shelter in place when the Constitution is under attack...Things never go well when we do.” Roberts disagrees. Ultimately, Gorsuch proved the more convincing among the Nine...this time, anyway.

This is a weird take. This likely had nothing to do with Gorsuch convincing anyone. The vote changed. That's it. In fact, as I mentioned Roberts and Gorsuch essentially argued sharply in the ruling in particular. Further their crossing comments suggest that part of the reason the majority did this was to push back on their losses for Newsom and Nevada. It wasn't like this was even subtle, Gorsuch said it out loud that they were making a point of this. To sum that up, the interpretation of the law changed inside the same year because of the outcome of a highly unusual political process. And they want everyone to know it.

The court’s most conservative justices distanced themselves from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Trump’s first nominee, went out of his way to say that lower courts should no longer follow Roberts’s guidance of deference, calling it “mistaken from the start.”

“Even if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical,” Gorsuch wrote. Rather than applying “nonbinding and expired” guidance from Roberts in an earlier case from California, Gorsuch said, “courts must resume applying the Free Exercise Clause.”

“Today, a majority of the court makes this plain.”