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.
Instead, it means that the question is whether the government has the power to disable the exercise of a right that they otherwise possess, rather than whether they possess the right at all.
2A
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I'm no Supreme Court Justice, but I don't think any "question" exists.
How tf do you become a judge and not have the ability to read?
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.
Kanter v Barr:
2A
I'm no Supreme Court Justice, but I don't think any "question" exists.
How tf do you become a judge and not have the ability to read?
Exactly. Right there with you man.
Do you know any on Trump's list that think the lockdowns are not okay?
not specifically. but ACB is a "no" from me for a multitude of issues. not just lockdown stuff.