The Supreme Court ruled that Biden is the Commander in Chief and Courts can’t interfere with his power, but Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito dissented.
The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that a lower court was wrong to allow a group of sailors to defy a direct order to get the COVID vaccine.
It should have been a 9-0 ruling on the military chain of command. The idea that the president is the Commander in Chief of the military is embedded in the US system of governance.
Justices Thomas and Gorsuch did write dissents, but Alito did, and his argument is mindblowing:
Today, the Court brushes aside respondents’ First Amendment and RFRA rights. But yesterday, the Court handed down another decision that illustrates the strong protection for religious liberty that is provided by the framework that applies under RFRA and strict scrutiny.
The decision in question, Ramirez v. Collier, involved a convicted murderer awaiting execution and his rights under 10 AUSTIN v. U. S. NAVY SEALS 1–26 ALITO , J., dissenting the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 14 Stat. 803, 42 U. S. C. §2000cc et seq ., which, among other things, essentially requires prisons to comply with the RFRA standard. Ramirez argued that his exercise of religion will be burdened unless Texas allows his pastor to lay hands on him and pray aloud while he is being executed. Ramirez was less than punctilious and consistent in requesting a religious accommodation, see Ramirez, 595 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 4–5); id., at___ (T HOMAS, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 8), but the Court’s decision forgave all that. Texas objected to Ramirez’s request on the ground that the pastor’s conduct might interfere with the execution, but the Court held that the State failed to discharge its burden to substantiate the likelihood of such harm. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 12).
The contrast between our decision in Ramirez yesterday and the Court’s treatment of respondents today is striking. We properly went to some lengths to protect Ramirez’s rights because that is what the law demands. We should do no less for respondents.
Alito Believes That Religious Freedom Supercedes The Constitution
Alito argued that religious freedom supersedes the Constitution and the president’s power as commander in chief. The consequence of his school of thought is that the Judicial Branch has the power to overrule the commander in chief.
Justice Alito believes that military members have the power to defy direct orders if they say that the order infringes upon their religious liberty.
Alito is out to destroy the system of separation of powers, and the fact that two other justices agreed with him is a red flag about the far-right judicial activists on the Supreme Court and their desire to rewrite the Constitution from the bench.
Mr. Easley is the managing editor. He is also a White House Press Pool and a Congressional correspondent for PoliticusUSA. Jason has a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science. His graduate work focused on public policy, with a specialization in social reform movements.
Awards and Professional Memberships
Member of the Society of Professional Journalists and The American Political Science Association