Supreme court junks religious rights by declining to hear case contesting NY governor's "take the jab or be fired" ORDER

Two days ago six black-robed assholes on the U.S. supreme court junked religious rights in the United States.

Of course you almost certainly don't believe that.  You think it's tinfoil-hat conspiracy stuff.

That's because you don't understand how the supreme court (lower-case intentional) controls what's considered legal in the U.S.  You think you do, but you don't.  Really.  Let me explain.

Know what the first clause of the First Amendment says?  Sure you do, cuz you went to a good public school, eh?  It reads,  

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;.. "

There's more, but that's the focus for now.  Just keep that in mind for a couple of minutes.

Now, there's a clause in the Constitution that says state laws can't contradict federal law.  For example, since federal law says there can be NO qualifications on who is eligible to vote (presumably other than being a U.S. citizen), no state can impose any qualifications.  And when the supreme court wants to, it readily overturns state laws that contradict federal law, or rights set forth in the Constitution.  Most adults know that.

But what few know is that when the court wants to support a state law--or an "executive order"--that supports a policy that at least 5 black-robed, unelected dictators like-- even if that law or order is unconstitutional--the court can junk what you thought was your constitutional right simply by failing to hear a case challenging that law or EO.

And that's what happened Monday.  The governor of the state of New York had issued an ORDER requiring that every health-care worker take the jab or be fired.  A group of those workers claimed Cuomo's order violated their First Amendment rights, by forcing them to violate their religious beliefs if they wanted to keep their job.

Now, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law...", and cunning Dems seize on that to say, "Since a state obviously isn't congress, it's legal to..."pass any draconian law or issue any dictatorial EO they want.

But wait:  What happened to that principle that state laws (and by extension, executive orders) can't contradict federal law or constitutional rights, eh?

Great question.  And if the SC agreed to hear the case, the six judges who voted not to hear the case would have a huge problem overruling a plaintiff's argument citing that well-known principle.  To supporting Cuomo's EO the justices would clearly be violating the supremacy clause.  Such a clear violation would make them look like political pawns.  Fools.  Tyrants.

Whoa, can't have that, eh?

So to prevent that, five justices simply vote not to take the case.  But what that does is establish a kind of legal precedent that can be (and is) cited in later cases, that by declining to hear a case involving a state law or EO that *clearly* violates a constituional right, the court was implicitly agreeing that said law or EO was actually legal (constitutional).  Got it?

Most hard-core liberals are hostile to religion, and the six supreme court justices who voted not to take this case rarely vote to uphold religious rights.  In declining to hear this case, the court has implicitly agreed that the governor of NY had the authority to order citizens to take the jab or be fired, even if taking the jab violated the plaintiffs' religious beliefs.

In other words, religious beliefs were overridden, despite the clear principle that state laws and executive orders can't violate your constitutional rights.

The court's refusal to take this case mirrors a similar refusal in October to take a case from Maine with essentially the same facts.  Two such refusals in a short time span suggest the court would similarly decline to overturn ANY governor's EO ordering people to either take the jab or be fired.

So you see how easily the supreme court can take away rights supposedly guaranteed by what was once called "the supreme law of the land" (for students, that would be the Constitution).  The court has become a political tool. 

Some argue it always has been.

Source.