Hey, no wonder legal commentators--the good ones--read the whole opinion before commenting on SCOTUS decisions. I've just read portions of Alito's opinion at LifeSite, and it's a slash and burn opinion:
‘The Court has emitted a wisp of a decision that leaves religious liberty in a confused and vulnerable state,’ argued Justice Alito. ‘Those who count on this Court to stand up for the First Amendment have every right to be disappointed — as am I.’
It seems that the three amigos on the Court--Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito--are pretty fed up already with the cautious approach that Justices Amy and Brett have adopted. Is that caution in deference to Roberts? That can only be speculation on my part. Whatever the reason, these three clearly want the Court to adopt a more aggressive approach in defending the Constitutional rights of Americans.
Alito is certainly correct that the City of Philadelphia can choose to continue to harass faith based agencies--for a time. OTOH, is it possible that the message has been sent to the federal courts in Philly and that the message will have been heard? Yes, it is just possible. Alito's counter to that would certainly be, What good is a Constitution and a SCOTUS is Americans have to wait years and spend huge sums to receive justice? I confess to having no ready response. After all, this approach would likely rely on the 3rd circuit adopting a stance at variance with existing law--exactly what lower courts aren't supposed to do. And in the meantime the Left's assault will continue. This looks like it won't be the setback I initially thought it would be.