Nice summary! It seems as though this site is claiming she has globalist positions without evidence, or saying she supports BLM because she has Haitian children. My buddy who is a lawyer calls her a strict constitutionalist, which is kinda what I want. The Cuban woman seems qualified as well. We will see!
Right? I want a constitutionally sound SCOTUS. That’s it. These things are always a gamble (cough John Roberts cough), but I kinda feel like leftists are scaring me about her, and I don’t care if she’s catholic and has adopted kids. I care if she is going to respect the constitution and protect my rights from government intrusion.
We've seen ABC brought up thousands of times here and at our old home on reddit. Never did anyone bring up the bullshit that we have seen the last couple of days. These shills have come out of the woodwork to try and discredit her based on hardly any evidence.
Really, all we are fairly certain of is that the nominee will be female. It could end up being Ivanka Trump or Candace Owens! I'd be all in on Candace! Good God, would those confirmation hearings be fun!
What? Candace Owens? Based on what? I want a track record of defending the Constitution From The Bench. I love Candace but someone who’s literally profession t was to study the Constitution is what we want
> Fact: ACB has strongly defended 1A. In IL GOP v. Pritzker, she ruled in favor of allowing Pritzker to exempt churches from the lockdown. Despite critics falsely claiming she "ruled for the lockdown," she actually ruled in order to preserve free exercise of religion.
This Executive Order does not limit the free exercise of religion. To protect the health and safety of faith leaders, staff, congregants and visitors, religious organizations and houses of worship are encouraged to consult and
follow the recommended practices and guidelines from the Illinois Department of Public Health. As set forth in the IDPH guidelines, the safest practices
for religious organizations at this time are to provide services online, in a drive‐in format, or outdoors (and consistent with social distancing requirements and guidance regarding wearing face coverings), and to limit indoor services to 10 people. Religious organizations are encouraged to take steps to ensure social distancing, the use of face coverings, and implementation of other public
health measures.
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. Indeed, the problems of late have centered on ordinary criminal mobs looting stores, not on peaceful protestors.
Essentially underpinning the biased selective enforcement by Pritzker due to "muh peaceful protestors". Now they have precedent to ensure Pritzker can/will always have the unlimited power to decide based on political motives how much/little he wishes to enforce the recommendations put forth by the IDPH.
He likes it that way.
Nice summary! It seems as though this site is claiming she has globalist positions without evidence, or saying she supports BLM because she has Haitian children. My buddy who is a lawyer calls her a strict constitutionalist, which is kinda what I want. The Cuban woman seems qualified as well. We will see!
In the face of all of those positives, you expect evidence as to why she's unacceptable to the right (which we presumably are, here)? You silly goose!
Right? I want a constitutionally sound SCOTUS. That’s it. These things are always a gamble (cough John Roberts cough), but I kinda feel like leftists are scaring me about her, and I don’t care if she’s catholic and has adopted kids. I care if she is going to respect the constitution and protect my rights from government intrusion.
We've seen ABC brought up thousands of times here and at our old home on reddit. Never did anyone bring up the bullshit that we have seen the last couple of days. These shills have come out of the woodwork to try and discredit her based on hardly any evidence.
Thank you for posting the truth.
I would not be upset if she's the nominee. And i won't be upset if she's not, because there are many people who are suitable the President can pick.
Going by his previous two picks, the President knows what he's doing, I trust him to make the right choice.
Fact: We don't know for sure that ACB is the nominee, but if she is, the salt mines will be working overtime.
Really, all we are fairly certain of is that the nominee will be female. It could end up being Ivanka Trump or Candace Owens! I'd be all in on Candace! Good God, would those confirmation hearings be fun!
What? Candace Owens? Based on what? I want a track record of defending the Constitution From The Bench. I love Candace but someone who’s literally profession t was to study the Constitution is what we want
FACT: Bears beets battlestar galactic
> Fact: ACB has strongly defended 1A. In IL GOP v. Pritzker, she ruled in favor of allowing Pritzker to exempt churches from the lockdown. Despite critics falsely claiming she "ruled for the lockdown," she actually ruled in order to preserve free exercise of religion.
Essentially underpinning the biased selective enforcement by Pritzker due to "muh peaceful protestors". Now they have precedent to ensure Pritzker can/will always have the unlimited power to decide based on political motives how much/little he wishes to enforce the recommendations put forth by the IDPH.