The Supreme Court has been Radicalized by Federalist Society

The Federalist Society judges will lead to religious anarchy, hence, a loss of the USA Constitution. The Constitution is about governance, not the lack of it. That governance includes allowing religious freedom to worship not the ability of religion to take over the country.

There is good reason to look to the expansion of the Supreme Court. What has to be noted is the fact Chief Justice John Roberts is in the minority. A growing number of decisions places him in the minority. That should be a concern of all the members of Congress. There is something wrong with a Chief Justice seeks to move the court to the PROPER interpretation of the Rule of Law and Legal Precedent and the majority refuses to relinquish radicalization.

John Robert's decisions cannot be ignored. There is a balance of decision-making that is not being achieved and he knows it.

April 15, 2021
By Mark Joseph Stern

Late on Friday night, (click here) the Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision in Tandon v. Newsom, which blocked California’s COVID-related ban on religious gatherings in private homes. Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, as did the three liberal justices, making Tandon yet another COVID decision in which Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s vote made the difference.

Although the conservative majority’s decision was unsigned and ran just four pages long, it radically altered the law of religious liberty. Since 1990’s Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court has not interpreted the First Amendment’s free exercise clause to require religious exemptions to laws that don’t discriminate against religion. In Tandon, however, the majority effectively overturned Smith by establishing a new rule, often called the “most favored nation” theory. Under this doctrine, any secular exemption to a law automatically creates a claim for a religious exemption, vastly expanding the government’s obligation to provide religious accommodations to countless regulations. In Tandon, for instance, the Supreme Court held that California had to let people gather indoors for Bible study because it allowed them to gather indoors to get a haircut, eat, or take a bus; if Californians can get pedicures, they must also be permitted to spend hours in close quarters discussing the Bible. And the Supreme Court created this sweeping new rule through its shadow docket—those cases decided with minimal briefing and no oral argument outside the court’s normal procedure....

We all know the political right has practiced INCREMENTALISM in changing the tone of the USA Rule of Law. This is another of those leanings. The majority decision is creating loopholes in the standard.

...Jim Oleske: In the very beginning, the court said its prior decisions had “made the following points clear.” It then laid out the “most favored nation” theory of religious exemptions. The principal authority cited is the Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo decision from this past fall—in which the court did not adopt that theory! Instead, the court said that New York had singled out religion for disfavored treatment, which would be consistent with Smith. It was only in separate opinions that various justices talked about “most favored nation” theory explicitly—the same justices who were talking about it in dissents over the summer before Justice Amy Coney Barrett had joined the court....

The radical right court is building on its own bad decisions and ignoring the very decision it made based in "favored nation theory." Favored nation theory is normally seen in international law and not domestic law. Basically, the religious right is CREATING a division between the general law of the land and that of the religious demands noted in EVANGELICAL GOALS to be AN AUTONOMOUS RULING AUTHORITY.

What we saw with Trump was a goal-oriented president seeking to end the USA Consitution and replace it with a king. In this instance, the radical right judges are seeking to declare any Religious Order, such as Evangelicals, autonomous ruling authority with them only answering to god and not the law. Well, if a religious sect in this country happens to worship the devil, according to the ambitions of Coney and her cohorts in the lower and appellate divisions, then the country is susceptible to the rulings of the Devil.

The five radically right judges have gone too far and the only mechanism to rein them in is to add judges to the Supreme Court to bring back a healthy balance of decision making. How many people knew when Coney-Barrett was confirmed that the Supreme Court would become a sideshow of the religious right circus? It has arrived, the five clowns to the circus are more than willing to entertain the understanding that religious PRACTICE in the USA is an autonomous and ungovernable body.