The Religious Right's Right Guy

Brett Kavanaugh wanted this case bad. It shows in his opinion.

The state of California's governor, Gavin Newsom, has restricted church attendance to 100 people, or 25% of its congregation, whatever is less, to keep people from getting too close to each other during this coronavirus epidemic. Religious groups challenged that on constitutional grounds, saying that it's an unfair violation of their right to worship.

That went all the way to the Supreme Court. It had to be quick-expressed, because cases usually take one or two years to get there. As it was, the decision was made at night, which is nearly as rare.

Chief Justice John Roberts crossed over and voted with the progressives to uphold Newsom's declaration. That should tell you something, too.

It says that four Supreme Court justices can't figure out that there's more than one way to worship at a church service than to be there personally. That's true, lots of people know it, and if they don't it's time to get tuned in.

Okay, maybe I'm wrong about that. But my congregation, Immanuel Presbyterian in Milwaukee, has pivoted and managed a virtual service quite nicely. It tapes the service earlier in the week, and you can Zoom it whenever you wish. In fact, anybody can; it isn't reserved just for members.

There are a recording crew, the organist, the paster and assistant pastor, and one or two singers or musicians there to provide the normal music. And that's it. They're working on a live stream, but aren't there yet.

It's a decent replacement. No, it isn't the same. And the church's session has decided to follow science guidelines to determine when to re-open. Nobody's in that much of a hurry, as long as we have an outlet to worship. Why endanger someone? Makes zero sense.

Yes, it might take a while. But in its wisdom, the session is not allowing other people's anxiousness and/or stupidity to overwhelm its sense of safety. Yes, there's a cost to all this, but what's the cost to the body in losing members to illness, perhaps to death? Is anybody doing anybody any favors?

But no. Practicality doesn't matter to nearly half the Supreme Court. Apparently, churches have the right to afflict their members with a terrible disease. The Constitution doesn't say you can be stupid, but they're squeezing it in there somewhere.

Kavanaugh thinks it's First Amendment stuff. He thinks that churches are equal to all other businesses when it comes to opening themselves back up to the public. "What California needs is a compelling justification of distinguishing between (i) religious worship services and (ii) the litany of other secular businesses that are not subject to an occupant cap," he wrote in his dissenting opinion.

Okay, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a judge. But I can read, and I can use some logic. Here's what I see to be a "compelling justification" to put limits on church attendance:

• Time. When you shop at Target (for instance), you can be there for an hour or five minutes, and the less the better. In church, in order to get the whole benefit, you have to stick around for the sermon. That leaves you there for the better part of an hour: Nobody goes to church for a five-minute service (Though in my former Catholic days, good old Father Reuter used to do mid-week Requiem masses in 17 or 18 minutes, sans sermon, bless his heart.) The longer you're there, the more likely getting sick will be.
• Movement. At Target, by its very nature, you have to move around to pick up the products. By that very nature, you're not likely to get sick because you can see who's coming up to you and can keep the six-foot social distancing. (I have been very careful to do so whenever possible. And, of course, wear a mask.) In church, it's not socially acceptable to move around during the service, unless one is required to get up to get communion. People can sit close to you and, again, give you the disease.
• Coordination. To 'go the church,' you have to be there at a certain time, which maximizes your possible closeness to others. When you go to Target, you might be better off to go at times when it's not crowded. (And, in fact, some franchises have carved out times for seniors to go so they're not hindered by large crowds, like Whole Foods, of which I have availed myself. Know what? Works nice, and they make you wear a mask, too.)

I'm guessing that at this point, you're probably thinking: Okay, well, the least of us can figure that out. Yeah, I know. But Kavanaugh wants Newsom to spell out that very obvious stuff--and, lacking that, he should lose the case.

Really? C'mon, Brett, you might be thinking. You have to be kidding.

Nope, because he has to try to save religion from any kind of regulation whatsoever. Remember, he's been put there by 45 to reassure the religious right base that God protects drunks, little children, and the United States of America. He's a religious extremist. It only stands to reason. He's the religious right's right guy.

There is no middle ground for Kavanaugh's position, nor can there ever be. He can't bring himself to a place of balance, which is where Newsom wants to go. If he did what he did with Christine Blasey Ford early in his life, he had no control over his emotions or attitudes, and has had to seal that behavior off with an iron will. He had to be given permission to cut loose with insults and tears in the second half of his Senate testimony. He did, because it was hiding there all along, creating a pathetic spectacle.

It's not unlike addictive behavior. He cannot relent just a little: There be demons. To meet the demands of his ambitions, he had to become a captive of the religious right. That's why he was a perfect researcher for Ken Starr to find dirt on Bill Clinton and an advocate of putting the most prurient details in print: He had to show the world that he could rise above it and had achieved a higher moral position. It was about expiation of his own sins, as much as it was about Clinton's.

Expect more of this, unless Kavanaugh has a St. Paul moment and abruptly changes course. (You never know. It's a lifetime appointment, remember.)

If you're still wondering what the battle about Kavanaugh was about, though, wonder no more. It was about much more than women's rights, though it was certainly about that, too. 45 wasn't about to back off as long as he had the numbers--much like the way Bush-41 stuck with Clarence Thomas in spite of the row caused by Anita Hill. It was a win for him, plain and simple, and the 'winning' continues where it's likely to do the greatest damage, whether it makes any sense or not.

Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.


Mister Mark