I don’t trust her — there’s something about her background all the way over to her fake smile. She wants power and stands so still and is always looking at the camera to make sure a photo is taken of her... maybe she is super conservative and will do away with Roe/Wade poison — I don’t know... but I do know that my senses are telling me there is something about that lady that I do not trust... these things are learned from dealing with various types of people across various cultures and countries — and it’s what has kept me alive!
It really pains me to say this, but I feel that I must.
I remember there were objections to JFK’s Catholicism - to the effect he would heed the Pope in his governance.
Well with Pope Francis, now I’m worried.
The case challenges the Pritzger order which gives religious activities more leeway than other activities, not less. The decision, which Barrett did not write - by the way - states:
A 8 No. 20‐2175 group of 100 people may gather in a church, a mosque, or a synagogue to worship, but the same sized group may not gather to discuss the upcoming presidential election. The Re‐ publicans urge that only the content of the speech distin‐ guishes these two hypothetical groups, and as they see it, Reed prohibits such a line.
Our response is to say, “not so fast.” A careful look at the Supreme Court’s Religion Clause cases, coupled with the fact that EO43 is designed to give greater leeway to the exercise of religion, convinces us that the speech that accompanies reli‐ gious exercise has a privileged position under the First Amendment, and that EO43 permissibly accommodates reli‐ gious activities. In explaining that conclusion, we begin with a look at the more conventional cases examining the interac‐ tion of the two Religion Clauses. We then take a close look at Reed, and we conclude by explaining that a comparison be‐ tween ordinary speech (including political speech, which all agree lies at the core of the First Amendment) and the speech aspect of religious activity reveals something more than an “apples to apples” matching. What we see instead is “speech” being compared to “speech plus,” where the “plus” is the pro‐ tection that the First Amendment guarantees to religious ex‐ ercise. Even though we held in Elim that the Governor was not compelled to make this accommodation to religion, nothing in Elim, and nothing in the Justices’ brief writings on the effect of coronavirus measures on religion, says that he was forbid‐ den to carve out some space for religious activities. See South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613 (2020); Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, No. 19A1070, 2020 WL 4251360 (U.S. July 24, 2020).
Kind of sour on both Lagoa and Barrett at this point. Though it’s clear they’d both be better than Ginsburg, I’d prefer someone good overall rather than just ‘better than the last person.’
Being honest, I’d prefer Hardiman, but he’s a man so is not in consideration.
Is this the thread where conservatives start attacking their own and try to turn a victory into a defeat? Looking at some of the complaining below and it looks like it.
bump
All the Amy Barrets in this country could cost us the election. She will be another Roberts on the Supreme Court, when we need a real conservative to neutralize the actual Justice Roberts.
Immediate no for me.
Trying to make sense of that sentence will break my head wide open so that my brains will leak out onto the floor.
Just another reason to go with Lagoa.
PING!