Judge Amy Coney Barrett Recently Approved Democrat COVID-19 Lockdown Policies

Big League Politics ^ | Sep 22 2020 | By Shane Trejo

[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.

[caww]

I got over that hump by accepting replacing a woman with another woman is a definate gesture of good will by the Pres. to the opposing party, considering the dynamics we all knew would come just in filling Gingsberg’s seat.

[SmokingJoe]

And how many women have there been?
So far, Republicans have appointed only ONE woman. That's it.
Perhaps you'd much rather we appoint another John Roberts yes?

[Dr. Scarpetta]

Surprised to read this.

[BigEdLB]

Barbara Lagoa

[kenmcg]

Another Sandra Day OConnor! Not too late to van her.

[Lisbon1940]

He should appoint Stckman.

[who knows what evil?]

Don’t put words in my mouth.

[SmokingJoe]

This is why Trump will win Florida.
Bl

[who knows what evil?]

Don’t put words in my mouth. I want a Constitutionalist...a document most Americans only give lip service to.

[SmokingJoe]

I don't need to. Your own words condemn you.

[House Atreides]

“She hid behind the precedent of Jacobsen v. Massachusetts (1905) in an attempt to avoid culpability for her decision.”
***************************************
In other words, she followed Supreme Court precedent... which is what Circuit Court of Appeals judges are supposed to do. This writer has AN AGENDA.

[SmokingJoe]

There is no greater constitutionalist than Amy Coney Barret.

[ronnie raygun]

Emotions get the better of them

[caww]

I’m more concerned with her large family and special needs children. Also she’s going to have issues about her beliefs in speaking in tongues etc. when it comes to what they’ll be putting her through in the process.

I’ve been seated next to individuals who will break out in jibber-jabber as if they have no control over their mouths. I sure wouldn’t want that happening if I was in meetings as Scotus.

[SmokingJoe]

The writer of the article is a lunatic. He actually called Amy Coney Barret “far left”. That just makes the entire article worthless.

[fatman6502002]

I see the fake conservatives whom are actually marxist Democrat plants are out in force trying to drum up anti Amy Coney Barrett sentiment. Ignore them.

[SmokingJoe]

She was already put through a brutal hearing by the Democrats in 2017 for her Court of Appeals confirmation hearing.
And she came through fine.

[caww]

Frankly I’m not crazy about either of the two. However that’s not up for me to decide either.

[fwdude]

I had no idea Barrett is a charismatic Catholic. Even so, I don’t think she’d have come this far if her open, uncontrolled practice of tongues were an issue in court settings.

I’m more concerned with “feelings-driven” court decisions. And women are notorious for relying on those.

[caww]

Well I understand why he's selecting a woman to replace a woman's former seat. But I'm not impressed with either of these gals when compared to the great men on the list.

Heavy.com has info on this group within their church she and her husband belong to and even their fathers are members....rather secretive and that's always a heads up.

Anytime Charismatics come into the picture it will always bring with it....uh oh’s and various other red lights...they've got some really outlandish practices.