She never was able to rule on the constitutionality of lockdowns.
What she DID rule on was that religious institutions should be afforded greater exemptions to lockdowns because of the first amendment regarding freedom of religion.
After reading the article, the Republicans wanted a special exemption, and it was denied. The final ruling was that the limit on gatherings had to be equally implemented, not just for Republicans. The article explicitly stated that it was a near impossibility to show that the progressive governor was equally enforcing the law between religious gatherings and BLM marches - and that if the governor wanted to lift the 50 person gathering law he had to do it universally, not just for one group.
While I am unhappy that the court didn’t simply outlaw the lockdown, the matter at hand was that there had to be equality between all gatherings, either up or down and that the Republicans could not demand special treatment, and that the legality of the ban was not the subject of the lawsuit.
After reading the court ruling, this was my take. The republicans argued that political speech could not be limited more than religious speech. The EO gave a more lenient carve out to church gatherings than political gatherings.
The court ruled that there is precedent that political speech and religious speech can be treated differently.
The second argument was that the governor was selectively enforcing the law by expressing sympathy/encouraging BLM protests. The court decided that the governor did not change the law by making his comments and that it would would be difficult to prove anything beyond local officials not enforcing the law.
The "substance" is not addressing the arguments that people here are making. Most people here don't care who she adopted or whether she is catholic. The "fact" is that she made decisions some people don't agree with. Address the actual arguments people are making, and make counterarguments.
She ruled in favor of lockdowns
Gonna be a no for me dog
and in favor of blm. double negative for me
Elaborate a bit please...
https://thedonald.win/p/HXk3K3u4/amy-barrett-is-catholic-romney-d/
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/illinois-coronavirus-lockdown-court-challenge-408747
That's a big fucking no for me.
No fucking bleeding hearts.
Source?
Here you go. All points are sourced in Barnes's thread.
https://thedonald.win/p/HXoc4C9I/thread-barrett-sided-with-the-go/
https://cookcountyrecord.com/stories/553524774-appeals-court-pritzker-ok-to-limit-or-not-limit-religious-political-gatherings-to-combat-covid-19
She ruled that state and local government can allow BLM rallies while BANNING REPUBLICANS FROM GATHERING.
Do you support decisions like this?
https://thedonald.win/p/HXk3K3u4/amy-barrett-is-catholic-romney-d/
☝️
This is a huge problem.
She was totally fine taking our rights away.
This is a lie.
She never was able to rule on the constitutionality of lockdowns.
What she DID rule on was that religious institutions should be afforded greater exemptions to lockdowns because of the first amendment regarding freedom of religion.
Ok, I was misinformed
Source?
https://cookcountyrecord.com/stories/553524774-appeals-court-pritzker-ok-to-limit-or-not-limit-religious-political-gatherings-to-combat-covid-19
She ruled that state and local government can allow BLM rallies while BANNING REPUBLICANS FROM GATHERING.
Do you support decisions like this?
After reading the article, the Republicans wanted a special exemption, and it was denied. The final ruling was that the limit on gatherings had to be equally implemented, not just for Republicans. The article explicitly stated that it was a near impossibility to show that the progressive governor was equally enforcing the law between religious gatherings and BLM marches - and that if the governor wanted to lift the 50 person gathering law he had to do it universally, not just for one group.
While I am unhappy that the court didn’t simply outlaw the lockdown, the matter at hand was that there had to be equality between all gatherings, either up or down and that the Republicans could not demand special treatment, and that the legality of the ban was not the subject of the lawsuit.
After reading the court ruling, this was my take. The republicans argued that political speech could not be limited more than religious speech. The EO gave a more lenient carve out to church gatherings than political gatherings.
The court ruled that there is precedent that political speech and religious speech can be treated differently.
The second argument was that the governor was selectively enforcing the law by expressing sympathy/encouraging BLM protests. The court decided that the governor did not change the law by making his comments and that it would would be difficult to prove anything beyond local officials not enforcing the law.
That is a completely false interpretation of that!!! Wow!!!
I got it from here. Upon further research, I might be mistaken.
https://thedonald.win/p/HXoc2Gbi/amy-coney-barrett-as-a-judge-app/c/
That link provided no source for anything except some fat Jabba the Hutt guy saying the same thing you are saying.
How about a court document or something more substantial than a podcast.
Edit: see the post below where someone actually linked court decisions she made to substantiate the argument.
That decision on illegals isn't about restrictions on immigration. It's about getting benefits after the motherfuckers are already here.
This guys works for NYT reeeeeeee But muh sources say so ..”lololololol”
You have anything more than “NYT SHILL!!!”?
How about some substance other than REEEEEE.
This is the substance I am talking about.
Your move, sheep.
The "substance" is not addressing the arguments that people here are making. Most people here don't care who she adopted or whether she is catholic. The "fact" is that she made decisions some people don't agree with. Address the actual arguments people are making, and make counterarguments.
All critiques are sourced in the thread...
https://thedonald.win/p/HXoc4C9I/thread-barrett-sided-with-the-go/