This is incredibly stupid commentary.”
Really? What’s stupid about it?
LOL!
What isn’t stupid about the commentary?
Claim something isn’t and I’ll respond.
I don’t believe anyone would accept this blatant stupidity. But if there’s something a fool would swallow...
What isn’t stupid about the commentary?
LOL!
Knew you couldn’t answer that.
And, of course, you don’t care.
Intelligent people know the judge was bound by Supreme Court precedent.
But you don’t care about intelligent people. They’re not your audience.
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.