Go read Jacobson v Massachusetts. Barrett tacitly consented to that piece of case law when she sided with Ellis who used it as "guidance" in the Illinois lockdown case.
Jacobson is scary as fuck and hadn't been used by the courts as precedent for 70+ years, and for good reason, until Ellis and Barret came along. That case law gives the government wayyy too much control over our lives. It's as bad as Wickard v Filburn and Plessy v Ferguson.
She shouldn't have ever been within a mile of concurring with Ellis just based off of Ellis's use of Jacobson. That indicates to me that she's either a statist, has a weak mind, or is close enough to either that I will not support her nomination.
And after the 18 years, lucrative book, speaking and consulting contracts...that have nothing to do with anyone who had any interest in anything brought before the court.
Look at how quickly they can write a bill when they want to do something. I’m sure the senate will strike it down as a gross and unnecessary political move.
Go read Jacobson v Massachusetts. Barrett tacitly consented to that piece of case law when she sided with Ellis who used it as "guidance" in the Illinois lockdown case.
Jacobson is scary as fuck and hadn't been used by the courts as precedent for 70+ years, and for good reason, until Ellis and Barret came along. That case law gives the government wayyy too much control over our lives. It's as bad as Wickard v Filburn and Plessy v Ferguson.
She shouldn't have ever been within a mile of concurring with Ellis just based off of Ellis's use of Jacobson. That indicates to me that she's either a statist, has a weak mind, or is close enough to either that I will not support her nomination.
Enlighten everyone here with how she backed Pritzker's unconstitutional lockdowns and we'll go from there
They won't do the same for congressmen or senators.
Congress wants term limits on everyone but themselves!! Typical Democrat shit right here.
Do as i say... not as i do
Surprising that they don't have a raise for themselves attached to this too
LMAO LMAO
BULLSHIT. WOULD TAKE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Yeah, a bill doesn't cut it. This is laughable.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED
No
Yeah right Dems. Laughing.
There's a reason SCOTUS is for life. It's so they're not subject to political nonsense.
So much for that!
Lol, those fucks are soooo salty. Num num num num num.
And after the 18 years, lucrative book, speaking and consulting contracts...that have nothing to do with anyone who had any interest in anything brought before the court.
Look at how quickly they can write a bill when they want to do something. I’m sure the senate will strike it down as a gross and unnecessary political move.