Read on Twitter
You can @ me all you want, but #Gorsuch's "science" in ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, NEW YORK v. ANDREW M. CUOMO, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK is wrong and he uses his twisting of scientific fact to make his conclusions. 1/
"So, at least according to the Governor, it may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians." 2/
Says #SCOTUS Justice #Gorsuch. First, mass gatherings indoors for an hour or more during high community spread of the virus ARE NOT the same as a half a dozen people in a liquor store for a 5 minute transaction, in a bike store with a few people for 20 minutes. 3/
This is not the opinion of the Governor of NYS, it is a verifiable fact supported by scientific evidence, and the expert opinion of epidemiologists and public health officials in most places across the globe. 4/
And, well it may be possible, but I have never been to a liquor store or bike shop where people sing together episodically for a hour or more as well, expelling droplets into the air around them. 5/
And a large number of people in an indoor gathering offer more vectors of transmission among each other than do a few people in a shop. 6/
And thus present a greater epidemiological risk to their communities and not just themselves. 7/
So, Justice #Gorsuch is wrong on the science. It is in part, the basis of his opinion--if bike shops and liquor stores can be open without restrictions on occupancy, why can't other institutions do the same, including churches and synagogues? 8/
It is the same reason that other large indoor gatherings have seen restrictions. Seen a Broadway show lately? No. Because the theaters are closed. Been to an NBA game lately? No because the NBA had the great sense to play its games without fans in the stands. 9/
Others can talk about legal merits of Justice Gorsuch's argument, the moral implications. But Gorsuch's argument is epidemiologically, scientifically ignorant, even worse, he had full knowledge of these facts in the amicus briefs in the case. So he is lying through his teeth. 10/
And I think @pontifex has something to say on the moral argument. Not all people of faith are as anti-science as those on #SCOTUS. 11/ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/26/opinion/pope-francis-covid.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
And here's some quick legal analysis from @JohnFabianWitt @YaleLawSch. 12/ https://twitter.com/JohnFabianWitt/status/1331988697290579970
And another legal scholar weighs in up the road in Boston. @tribelaw 13/ https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1331946867035398145
God save us. end/
