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 ...
“She is woke with a designer inter-racial family.”
That is an excellent point. I was saying “PC” in posts, but the new “woke” word is a perfect description. “Designer family”: Also great point.
She has already gone through the tough confirmation wringer as recently as 2017. Bring it on.
I’m not leftist -— I’m a huge conservative - have been and seen up close and personal the corruption of the left/Democrats - and those that call themselves conservatives -— might want to read into her background and do some homework before you come on here and accuse me of something... I have my reasons and I have experience in these matters... this isn’t some 4 yr term that she will be granted to -— so excuse me - go ahead and laugh — you know nothing about me or my background... but you’ve given me quite the insight into your character - thanks!
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).
I don’t look at this as a Trust of Trump or not...
Many Supreme Court Justices have been disappointments once on the bench. If she supported lockdowns, especially ones that forbid church attendance, thay definitely makes me question her being on the Supreme Court.
Did anyone here actually read the decision? I just posted it above. Barrett is not guilty in every sense of the word. Also, the decision, which she did not write, is in line with Supreme Court precedent. She is not making new law here but upholding the law.
How many women have Republicans put on the Supreme Court?
“Dumbass, misogynist post. Look, you either trust Trump or you don’t.”
When it comes to “trust Trump or you don’t”, I kind-of don’t. He has a DREADFUL record when it comes personnel choices. Eventually, he replaces his initial bad choices, but he won’t have that luxury here. It’s a lifetime appointment.
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.
There’s No Downside To Trump Nominating Amy Coney Barrett
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/22/theres-no-downside-to-trump-nominating-amy-coney-barrett/
There’s No Downside To Trump Nominating Amy Coney Barrett
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/22/theres-no-downside-to-trump-nominating-amy-coney-barrett/
I think we can ALL agree she would be far better than RBG
Read the actual decision folks. Linked in post #104 above. She’s fine.
“She’s also Catholic”
ARRRRGH!!!
To a huge number of FReepers, this is NOT a good or fair thing. One more Catholic still leaves SCOTUS entirely comprised of Jews and Catholics.
How about an evangelical Christian? You know ... one of those people who actually PUT TRUMP IN THE WHITE HOUSE!
Sometimes it seems FR is a parallel universe with the USA. The protestants and evangelicals are equal to the GOP and conservatives. The Catholics are equal to the minorities and BLM. Evangelicals fought for, and established, the country so EVERYONE would have a better life, and then are pushed to the side as if we don’t matter. Not even a “Thanks, guys!”
America came close to having Baptist the state religion. James Madison offered that up as a “bribe” to John Leland, the influential leader of the “Virginia Baptists”, in exchange for Leland’s support while the Constitution was being written. Madison absolutely needed the Virginia Baptist group.
Leland ended up supporting Madison, but refused his bribe. He supported Madison ONLY if there would be total and complete religious freedom for ALL faiths.
(You’re welcome.)
So, Baptists (”evangelicals”) supported freedom for ALL faiths, as GOP supported freedom for ALL races. Now, minorities are bullying the GOP who gave them their freedom, and Catholics are bullying the evangelicals who basically gave them their freedom in the USA.
Have a little respect, for Pete’s sake!!
“How many women have Republicans put on the Supreme Court?”
Just O’Conner, I think.
Good point. I won’t believe the gist of this article until I read the opinion. If one wishes, it is easy to mischaracterize a court decision.
I’ve argued cases before Judge Gorsuch. You don’t know what your talking about.
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.