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.
Good luck getting a supermajority of the House, Senate, and States for this nonsense.
That's what I was thinking. To do this, it would require a Constitutional Amendment, correct?
Yeah, good luck getting 2/3rd of the House and Senate and States to approve this.
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.