Posted on 09/22/2020 11:55:17 PM PDT by rintintin
Judge Amy Coney Barrett has emerged as the choice of Conservative Twitter to be the successor on the Supreme Court to replace deceased former justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died on Friday after many bouts of cancer.
However, Barrett’s record is troubling on many issues, with a ruling that gives Democrats in Illinois blanket authority to shut down society based on COVID-19 mass hysteria standing out as particularly heinous.
Barrett concurred with the majority in Illinois Republican Party et al. v. J.B. Pritzker, Governor of Illinois to keep the illegal lockdown in place and allow Democrats to rip up the Constitution under the guise of safety. She hid behind the precedent of Jacobsen v. Massachusetts (1905) in an attempt to avoid culpability for her decision.
“At least at this stage of the pandemic, Jacobson takes off the table any general challenge to [Pritzker’s executive order] based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of liberty,” the majority opinion read in the case.
It continued: “[W]hile in the face of a pandemic the Governor of Illinois was not compelled to make a special dispensation for religious activities, see Elim, nothing in the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment barred him from doing so. As in the cases reconciling the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, all that the Governor did was to limit to a certain degree the burden on religious exercise that [the governor’s executive order] imposed.”
While Barrett rolls over to the far left and allows Democrats to rip up the Constitution, other judges are actually living up to their oath, such as the Trump-appointed District Judge in Pennsylvania, William S. Stickman.
(Excerpt) Read more at bigleaguepolitics.com ...
yeah — I READ ALL OF IT -— ALL 4 paragraphs @ the very end + the links...
Your honor, the counsel is being hostile and unproductive - can we move on - this is a waste of time and effort - if it pleases the court.
NEXT!
You obviously know NOTHING about Amy Barrett.
This article isn’t entirely accurate, as I understand the situation. Amy Barrett was not on the panel that heard the original Pritzker case that upheld Pritzker’s orders so she never rendered an opinion in the case. However, the litigants in that case asked the 7th Circuit (Amy’s court) to do an en banc review.. Every judge on that court refused to do the review. According to attorney friends of mine, the refusal of the judges to hear the case is troubling, but doesn’t necessarily mean every judge opposed it. It could be that they wanted to fast track the case to the SC. Or the minority knew they didn’t have the votes to take up the case. Or they knew the case was moot at that point, which they believe it was. This case may be reason for concern, or maybe not.
No she did not, that was not the issue before her. The issue before her was whether Peitzker could exempt religious gathering to the 50 person limit. The decision was unanimous that the exemption was constitutional.
Going back how long?
ff
Hispanics? Which ones? They are far from being a homogeneous group. Ask anyone from Ctrl or South America what they think of Mexicans. They can also tend to hate people from the next little country over in Ctrl/South America and none of them think of Cubans as similar to them. Cubans are Cubans as far as most other Hispanics are concerned. I worked in a place where 80% of the workers were Hispanic but from many different places, including Cuba. The Cubans hung out with each other as a separate group. No one else really talked to them.
Some unknown judge being of Cuban decent isn't going to garner a bunch of Hispanic votes for Trump.
EVERY SINGLE WOMAN appointed to the high Court has been an unmitigated disaster, whether appointed by Republicans or Democrats.
It’s valid. I didn’t say, “REPUBLICAN” women; you said that. I said “women”.
O’Connor became a squishy John Roberts, and she did NOT work well for conservatives.
In 1992, her vote helped strike down a Pennsylvania law requiring spousal awareness for an abortion.
In opposition to the Republican call to reverse the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion rights, O’Connor provided the vote needed to uphold the court’s earlier decision.
Cuban Americans will never forget how Obama/Biden stabbed them in the back.
Another Sandra Day OConnor! Not too late to van her.
Amy Barrett has been under consideration by Trump for every opening on the SC. She has been the most qualified every time but Trump wanted to save her for Ginsberg. I have been researching her since her confirmation hearings in 2017 for the 7th appeals court. She is brilliant with a hyper intellect. She is not lazy, she will do the work that needs to be done in detail. She is an originalest with a long paper trail. She is very much pro-life. And very much pro 2cd amendment. In short if you are a conservative there is no better judge male or female than Amy Barrett.
Check out her paper on capital punishment, https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1523&context=law_faculty_scholarship
Has an odd comment about things that Catholics should be against, al forms of killing including abortion, capital punishment and nuclear war. Does that mean she’ll recuse herself in a case about using nukes to defend the USA???
“(O’Connor was not Sotomeyer stupid, but not up to snuff to be on the Supreme Court).”
“Amen!” to that. I was reading up on her bio, and she was strongly opposed by the pro-life members when Reagan nominated her. They were prescient in realizing that she would be squishy on abortion.
In contrast, had the majority in Heller gutted the Second Amendment and effectively also wiped out state provisions for the right to KABA, there'd be little to stop us from becoming Europe.
I also think Bork was a closet statist and, as maddening as Kennedy was, I suspect Bork would have been Kennedy-ish disappointment, and not a Scalia or Thomas.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda...but again we may have gotten off light in retrospect.
I really cannot disagree. Women are supposed to be nurturers, not lawmakers, and not judges. Very few women are clear-thinking enough to be judges. Risk-aversion in a judge is a bad thing in a free society.
Perhaps you belong on DU. Here on FR, we are PRO-GUN.
And she was a DISASTER.
Thanks for posting that. That gives the lie to most of the posts on the ruling in a couple of different ways.
No she did not, that was not the issue before her. The issue before her was whether Peitzker could exempt religious gathering from the 50 person limit. The decision was unanimous that the exemption was constitutional.
He does not have a great record in choosing nominees for anything, be it Executive or Judicial Branch. In facet, his record if so-so if not awful. I like Trump, support him, will vote for him again, but he often picks lousy people. In this case, he is more beholden to slippery advisorsm, than perhaps Executive nominees.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.