Also just think about it from a common sense standpoint. All of the judges on the shortlist are pro-life. Also It's very very unlikely that Roe v Wade comes up again for SCOTUS decision. There is no need whatsoever to go balls to the wall for ACB if Lagoa will give the same decision hypothetically.
The media will absolutely destroy ACB, due to her out stated beliefs, her affiliations with "shady" Catholic groups that they media have already called "handmaid's tail" like, her opposition to contraceptives etc.
She'll come across as a hardcore authoritarian catholic who wants to control women and their sex life's. It will hurt Trump badly with almost every demographic group, while simultaneously only activating the evangelical base in states that are already going to pick Trump.
I just linked a thread with multiple valid criticisms, you ignored it.
I don't care that she's catholic, neither do you. What I'm saying is that she will be perceived as off putting. When have the media ever cared about the constitution? The media will paint her as an authoritarian zealot.
Trump has been hemorrhaging with suburban white women which he absolutely needs. How do you think they'll vote if the media tells them he's picked an authoritarian zealot who's anti contraception. Stop pretending that these decisions have no consequences and grow up.
No, she didn't. The argument was that political speech (Republicans gathering) carried as much weight as religious speech (much looser rules in lockdown EO). So, the court ruled it does not.
Yes, one outcome, had they won, could be that the more favorable rules would be removed.
However, the ability of the government to limit free speech and association (political, religious or otherwise) is not constitutional, itself. There is no carve out in the constitution for emergencies or pandemics.
I haven't read her decision on this but allow me to play devil's advocate.
What if, instead of the current fake virus, there was a real dangerous outbreak of ebola or something similar. Would you be opposed to having mandatory lockdowns then?
Also, I heard ACB is pro-2A and pro nationwide concealed carry
Yes, I would be opposed to mandatory lock down in any situation... Our God-given rights aren't suspended under any circumstances and the government usurping those rights is tantamount to war. Immediate disqualifier in my eyes.
she has ruled in favor of lockdowns, big govenernment, and CORPS. There is nothing wrong for not falling in line with the first pick.
So she ruled for the lockdown then tried to walk it back by ruling for the church?
I disagree, there are a LOT of valid criticisms of her. Barnes has a great thread here : https://twitter.com/Barnes_Law/status/1308232087342784512?s=19
Also just think about it from a common sense standpoint. All of the judges on the shortlist are pro-life. Also It's very very unlikely that Roe v Wade comes up again for SCOTUS decision. There is no need whatsoever to go balls to the wall for ACB if Lagoa will give the same decision hypothetically.
The media will absolutely destroy ACB, due to her out stated beliefs, her affiliations with "shady" Catholic groups that they media have already called "handmaid's tail" like, her opposition to contraceptives etc.
She'll come across as a hardcore authoritarian catholic who wants to control women and their sex life's. It will hurt Trump badly with almost every demographic group, while simultaneously only activating the evangelical base in states that are already going to pick Trump.
I just linked a thread with multiple valid criticisms, you ignored it. I don't care that she's catholic, neither do you. What I'm saying is that she will be perceived as off putting. When have the media ever cared about the constitution? The media will paint her as an authoritarian zealot.
Trump has been hemorrhaging with suburban white women which he absolutely needs. How do you think they'll vote if the media tells them he's picked an authoritarian zealot who's anti contraception. Stop pretending that these decisions have no consequences and grow up.
The criticism I heard (still in front page as of like half hour ago) is that she was in support of the lockdowns
Spez: https://thedonald.win/p/HXodBUCz/barrett-is-not-our-girl/c/
She ruled for the lockdowns which is against 1st amendment; therefore, DISQUALIFIED.
No, she didn't. The argument was that political speech (Republicans gathering) carried as much weight as religious speech (much looser rules in lockdown EO). So, the court ruled it does not.
Yes, one outcome, had they won, could be that the more favorable rules would be removed.
However, the ability of the government to limit free speech and association (political, religious or otherwise) is not constitutional, itself. There is no carve out in the constitution for emergencies or pandemics.
I haven't read her decision on this but allow me to play devil's advocate.
What if, instead of the current fake virus, there was a real dangerous outbreak of ebola or something similar. Would you be opposed to having mandatory lockdowns then?
Also, I heard ACB is pro-2A and pro nationwide concealed carry
Yes, I would be opposed to mandatory lock down in any situation... Our God-given rights aren't suspended under any circumstances and the government usurping those rights is tantamount to war. Immediate disqualifier in my eyes.
I also heard she was very pro 2a.
Well said...
Right to protest & practice religion is "more equally" protected than freedom of assembly is how I interpret the ruling