Skip to comments.Judge Amy Coney Barrett Recently Approved Democrat COVID-19 Lockdown Policies
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, Barretts 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 [Pritzkers executive order] based on the Fourteenth Amendments 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 governors 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 ...
I do not trust her at all. In the women think with there hearts, not there heads.
” in the end “
Shes a woman. Women are roughly 3x more likely to be risk averse than men.
This is why women shouldnt be on any court bench.
This is incredibly stupid commentary. It even exults in it’s stupidity IMO!
“I do not trust her at all. In the women think with there hearts, not there heads.”
I’m a female, and I don’t trust her either. My gut tells me this is going to come back to bite us if she is chosen. I’d prefer the Cuban female judge from FL to this one. She’s going to be too corporate in attitude, too establishment and she’s married to another lawyer, that’s one too many lawyers for me.
My thought are the same ....... and I’m a woman.
This is incredibly stupid commentary.
Really? Whats stupid about it?
Curious, why the Cuban lady?
Some favorable rulings or because she's cuban?
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...
No, because Cubans understand the value of freedom. They haven’t been raised in the ivy league ivory town and swamp like most current and former SCOTUS occupants. Sandra Day - as an Arizonan and former state legislator - is the exemplar.
A Cuban would understand why well meaning restrictions on hostility to individuals.
RAND might have a problem with her.....
What isnt stupid about the commentary?
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.
Furthermore, there are plenty of Cubans that support socialism. If there weren't, the Castro family would never have risen to power and remained there iron fisted for decades.
I know nothing of the "cuban" justice's legal background but to assume 100% of Cubans in this country are 100% free of socialism/communism is fallacy.
They are both apparently Catholics so that can't be a disqualifer for you between the two.
So how is this cuban justice the superior choice? Can you say she has zero questionable rulings?
So by your reasoning....having gone to an ivory tower school, she is disqualified.
And yes, I just looked that up (where she went to school).
Dumbass, misogynist post.
Look, you either trust Trump or you don’t. The one “life” case that came before his appointees they stepped up.
If she protects “the children”, and the unborn are that, she’s my choice hands down. If you are all about “muh gunz”, get some help.
I trust Trump when he warrants trust. I voted for him and will vote for him again, so Ive bought the right to be critical of him when needed. No one is always-right or always-wrong.
The only thing worse than a NeverTrumper is an AlwaysTrumper. He is not a god.
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.