194
Comments (29)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
16
9
MedPede 9 points ago +9 / -0

Thanks for that - this part:

"The judges also rejected the attempt to compare the Republican events to Black Lives Matter protests.

They said the governor’s endorsement of the protests and marches, nor his participation in them, is enough to “change the law” or to “change the text of the order.” The judges said the Republicans did not present enough proof that Pritzker and the state government actively allowed the Black Lives Matter protests favored by left-wing Democrats like Pritzker, while shutting down equivalent demonstrations from the other side of the political spectrum.

“Underenforcement claims are hard to win…,” the judges noted. “Although we do not rule out the possibility that someone might be able to prove this type of favoritism in the enforcement of an otherwise valid response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the record in this case falls short.”"

shows me that Amy Barrett has the brain of a rock. My vote would be HELL NO on Barrett. She could and should have declared the Pritzker was treating them unequally and ruled that he had to mandate the same restrictions and enforcement for both.

-2
deleted -2 points ago +1 / -3
4
2020REBOUND 4 points ago +4 / -0

A federal appeals panel says Gov. JB Pritzker is free to limit Republican political gatherings in the name of fighting COVID-19, but also allowed under the law to give more leeway to religious gatherings and Black Lives Matter protests, if he chooses.

6
The_Urge 6 points ago +6 / -0

BLM is a political gathering. How do we get it through their thick liberal skulls.

5
lurker_chan [S] 5 points ago +5 / -0

And the judges emphasized the governor also still has the authority under the Constitution and the law to impose public health restrictions on religious practices. They pointed to a decision the Seventh Circuit delivered earlier this year, which stated the court believes Pritzker and other governors have no obligation to exempt religious gatherings from COVID-19 prevention measures imposed on businesses and other organizations and assemblies.

4
324jl 4 points ago +4 / -0

They "conveniently" missed the part about the measures being unconstitutional in the first place.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
2020REBOUND 1 point ago +1 / -0

Certainly doesn't sound good but I would need to have someone knowing the law to determine if this was unconstiutional or something to bring out the pitchforks.

I just want to see democrats cry about abortion vs. a woman with 7 kids lol

that alone will decide the election and grant Trump 2 more judges.She certainly will be better than RGB!