The restrictions are on and the attempts have been made by Governor Cuomo here in New York to restrict the churches and synagogues. Peopleeople are fortunately going to be able to gather to celebrate this sacred National holiday. The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the limitations on the amount of people allowed into religious buildings to participate in religious observance was deemed unconstitutional and so we've been granted a reprieve in a verdict of five to four. Even though you could say this was a "conservative win" it came in just under the bar with what would have been deadlocked just a month before since Amy Coney-Barrett was the tiebreaker. Unfortunately this is business as usual, even though there is a supposed "conservative" majority on the court. As anyone who has been paying attention for more than 5 minutes could predict, John Roberts voted against the conservatives on this case which seems to show he is in no way conservative or even sympathetic to conservatism. In my estimation he is the biggest wasted Court Justice appointment in my lifetime and I don't know exactly how he slipped through the cracks other than he must not have had much of a record before being appointed which is probably why we have not heard much about him. In other words he wasn't "Borked." The reason for this is obvious he's taking the side of the left consistently at the very least since Obama's unconstitutional Obamacare ruling. To rewrite legislation from the bench is the very definition of overstepping the bounds and destroying one of the most powerful checks our system has. It's not surprising though that it would be the supposed conservative appointment that would do this - because it's funny the leftist appointed judges consistently rule in lock step and never vary their position based on the evidence but more on their appropriation of what they believe the law should be. This is the very opposite of what might be considered an originalist or a textualist in fact it works against the very legal system it's supposed to uphold. If the the very language that we use can never be nailed down and is constantly fluid and in the state of flux then that means no laws can actually be applied consistently but that would actually degrade the argument of law from the leftist perspective. The foundational principles in play are evident when looking at this in an objective way put another way if you look at the way the left views gender and it's fluidity it can't be surprising that they would view legal systems in much the same way it's how you "identify" it not what it actually is. Because there is no "is." I just wish John Roberts put that on his resume so at least we knew what we were contending with. One final thought on this why is it that they continually drift leftward and never toward conservatism is it really a superficial as they like to be liked I think it is that's all for now. God bless and have a Happy Thanksgiving.