This is a typical female response. Rather than giving weight only to fact and evidence and reason, like a chess played out many moves, equal weight is given to emotions and feelings and perception.
page 19 has the bulk of it. I'd copy-paste the text here, but spaces are removed so it looks pretty ugly.
Key points (from a related article) excerpts
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.
However, they said the governor was also free to give religious gatherings greater leeway, compared to other otherwise First Amendment-protected activities, because of the special “speech-plus” status the First Amendment grants to religious exercise and practice.
The law, the judges said, “does not compel the Governor to treat all gatherings alike, whether they be of Catholics, Lutherans, Orthodox Jews, Republicans, Democrats, University of Illinois alumni, Chicago Bears fans, or others,” Judge Wood wrote. “Free exercise of religion enjoys express constitutional protection, and the Governor was entitled to carve out some room for religion, even while he declined to do so for other activities.”
The primary argument of the court is that the scope of first amendment privileges is 1) limited and 2) administered at the discretion of the governor. And THEN 3) that the plaintiff has to prove unequal discrimination.
On Points 1 and 2 alone , that disqualifies her in my opinion. she agrees with this opinion written by the court, and in essence not only says covid lock downs are OK, but that 1A is, in fact, limited in scope, and is exercised at the permission and discretion of the governor.
I hate the identity politics but I'm going to love watching democrats try to destroy a Cuban American woman's character, they will squirm like the weasels they are and have to vote for her
Doesn't matter. They've tried to destroy Ted Cruz who is cuban.
They only use the race/gender card when it suits them. And most cubans are based anyway. Even the ones who were liberal before have been completely turned away by the socialism and communism of the left.
I think the Cuban American is the one to go for. She's brilliant, hispanic and also from Florida which is a battleground state.
Also, can you imagine the rage Hispanics will feel after Democrats call her a rapist and a racist? It's going to be an endless parade of salty tears
Both have the ability to win us new voters when Democrats attack them.
ACB has 7 kids including 2 black adopted lol
Cumala Harris will shriek and shrill...
But I heard a lot of negatives about ACB from pedes reg. her judging.
Her rulings on 2A and covid completely disqualify her imho.
Also this at 14:30 is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. https://youtu.be/j0ZN532f9d0
Disgusting. The bitch is all feelings and emotion. She belongs nowhere near the SCOTUS.
This is a typical female response. Rather than giving weight only to fact and evidence and reason, like a chess played out many moves, equal weight is given to emotions and feelings and perception.
She is totally disqualified in my book.
Wtf. In order to guard against my own emotional bias, I imagine the opposing side's emotional bias and see how that feels?
Really, WTF. This is making the case for why women should never ever be judges.
when will we learn
https://imgur.com/a/vLBowQ0
Source for the 2A and covid rulings?
2A: https://thedonald.win/p/HXjxedvz/sunday-gunday-psa--acb-is-not-pr/
Covid -- https://s3.amazonaws.com/jnswire/jns-media/f6/e6/11467564/il_gop_v_pritzker_7thcirc.pdf
page 19 has the bulk of it. I'd copy-paste the text here, but spaces are removed so it looks pretty ugly.
Key points (from a related article) excerpts
The primary argument of the court is that the scope of first amendment privileges is 1) limited and 2) administered at the discretion of the governor. And THEN 3) that the plaintiff has to prove unequal discrimination.
On Points 1 and 2 alone , that disqualifies her in my opinion. she agrees with this opinion written by the court, and in essence not only says covid lock downs are OK, but that 1A is, in fact, limited in scope, and is exercised at the permission and discretion of the governor.
horrible.
She says one must separate personal feelings from judicial rulings I don’t see the problem, unless I’m reading it wrong
she says " I try to imagine it's one of my children, on the other side. . . If this were someone I loved . . . could I apply this reasoning"
I hate the identity politics but I'm going to love watching democrats try to destroy a Cuban American woman's character, they will squirm like the weasels they are and have to vote for her
Future CNN headline:
“New study confirms Cubans descend from white slave owners; not actually people of color”
Doesn't matter. They've tried to destroy Ted Cruz who is cuban.
They only use the race/gender card when it suits them. And most cubans are based anyway. Even the ones who were liberal before have been completely turned away by the socialism and communism of the left.
Putting someone on the court purely for politics is a shit reason. Fuck identity politics.
Plus Cubans HATE socialism. As a Canadian I’ve travelled to Cuba lots for holidays and they are super super oppressed.
So do Vietnamese people, but second gen Vietnamese tend to always vote Dem.