A progressive judge (a Clinton appointee) in a progressive court (in Oregon) upheld religious liberty.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the fix. The Biden administration pledged to “vigorously” defend the religious exemption (angering some of its LGBT allies), and on Friday, the religious exemption won, at least for now. Judge Aiken issued a 40-page opinion that not only denied the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction RR against the religious exemption, it dismissed the case entirely. And she did so using language that clearly indicated she recognized the impact of generations of supermajority Supreme Court jurisprudence protecting religious liberty.
The opinion quoted the Supreme Court again and again:
This Court has long recognized that the government may (and sometimes must) accommodate religious practices and that it may do so without violating the Establishment Clause.
A law is not unconstitutional simply because it allows churches And churches to advance religion, which is their very purpose.
The right and the left expect the wrong thing from the courts. They expect courts to rule in their favor or against them based on the ideological commitments of the judges. E.g., Trump “These are MY judges.” And SOMETIMES the judges seem to rule in purely ideological ways
I’m always heartened when judges read & apply the law & precedent, whether that agrees or disagrees with me ideologically.
Anyway. Read the whole thing;