41
Comments (19)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
4
AceOfTrumps 4 points ago +6 / -2

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/

6
Raetchel 6 points ago +7 / -1

She ruled for the lockdowns which is against 1st amendment; therefore, DISQUALIFIED.

-4
deleted -4 points ago +1 / -5
3
dems_be_crazy 3 points ago +3 / -0

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.

5
deleted 5 points ago +6 / -1
-3
deleted -3 points ago +1 / -4
-1
mythbusterr -1 points ago +2 / -3

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

5
AceOfTrumps 5 points ago +6 / -1

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.

3
Mubga 3 points ago +3 / -0

Well said...

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
-4
deleted -4 points ago +1 / -5
2
AceOfTrumps 2 points ago +3 / -1

Right to protest & practice religion is "more equally" protected than freedom of assembly is how I interpret the ruling