Dems ready to submit a bill giving term limits to SCOTUS. How about you give yourselves term limits, assholes?
(www.reuters.com)
DRAIN THE SWAMP
Comments (471)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
If Barrett was so good, she wouldn't need shills spamming for her.
I honestly don’t know anything about her. All I know is FoxNews is pushing her. So, whatever that means...
you know what that means
It means choose the Latina
If she was bad someone would post a link to her actual bad judgments so we can read them directly and see the full details in context.
I've been asking for this for several days, but no one has posted such a response yet.
https://thedonald.win/p/HXjxedvz/sunday-gunday-psa--acb-is-not-pr/
Among other things.
Just go read Jacobson v Massachusetts. Barrett tacitly consented to that piece of case law when she sided with Ellis who used it a "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.
I read her ruling here, and indeed, this ruling of hers seems terrible. To me it appeared to be her own preference to keep guns away from people, and one could easily make a different argument than she did.
This differs from other rulings of hers that people linked that given the case, I actually could see her reasoning and established precedent, and it appears to be justified.
Thank you!
How about a paper written in school about how Catholics must recuse when the law conflicts with dogma?
Do we really want to wind up with another Sessions-like scenario when she bows out during a hearing on immigration because the Pope says we should let illegal immigrants do whatever they want? Or recusing herself on 2A claims because the Pope has an opinion on "weapons of war"? It's precisely the globalist desires of the corrupted Catholic church that we need to defend against, and I say this as a former Catholic.
How about the ruling that the lockdowns are totally fine? Sorry in advance for the trash politico link, but it was the only full pdf of the ruling that I could find in my browser history. Sure, it was under Wood, but she's there too.
The appeals court could have remanded the case to let them at least try to prove this "difficult to prevail case". Anyone with eyes can see it happening, so the evidence exists. And, look, I get it, appeals court generally upholds cases as a matter of course, so successful appeals that change outcomes are rare. But that's pretty wishy-washy IMHO.
Also, even more damning, Anaconda agrees with QuaranIsToiletPaper.
Thank you!
So I read the links you posted, thank you.
Regarding her paper, she does point out this is in regards to the death penalty, where it would be difficult for a judge to separate their feelings for the case. I don't want another sessions like scenario, but I'm not sure she would have the same stance regarding immigration and feel as strongly about it as sentencing someone to death. It's also a positive thing if a judge feels upfront that they cannot fairly judge a case, they should recuse themselves. The real question to ask her is how often would her feelings get in the way. This paper tells me more that she is unlikely to ever impose the death penalty.
For ruling you linked to regarding lockdowns, while I personally dislike all these lockdowns, this case was not about lockdowns in general but whether there should be exceptions in certain cases due to 1A. I actually find her argument compelling, and I'm not sure that the same cases presented with the same evidence would have another judge rule differently.
On the other hand, the 2A case that rentfREEEE_since2016 posted, I do not find her argument compelling at all. From what I understand, other judges also reviewed that case and came to the opposite conclusion. To me her ruling seemed more to be looking for an excuse to keep more guns out of people's hands.
I read that case you linked, and am not sure what to make of it. Churches were exempt from the 50 person max gathering, but nothing else?
She basically says the clearly unequal and discriminatory practice of enforcement re: blm is local, not State. Have "the Republicans" followed up, suing the local government?
https://twitter.com/Barnes_Law/status/1308232087342784512?s=19
Also
Duckduckgo.com
This has been posted and ignored here.
Edit - lol, just a downvote. Cool
The guy seems like a leftist whacko. I only read one of the cases, but don't see how ACB did anything wrong.
I'd prefer the other chick in FL anyway, but can you speak to anything about this link specifically?
The pro-lifers love her because they think she is a solid vote to kill Roe v Wade. The mask debaters really hate her over a recent decision. The rest of us is wondering how she is on other issues. And whether she is strong enough to resist the temptation of Washington DC cocktail parties that befell so many "conservative" justices before her.
I'm as pro life as anyone, but I don't think the odds look good for overturning Roe v Wade, no matter who gets nominated.
The legal findings of that case were trash, yes, which is why the left freaks out about it so much, but, historically, getting that case reheard 50 years later is a tall order. The best we can hope for is ruling any regulations as constitutional that restrict abortion to "rape, birth defects, or incest" like the dems are always screaming about (even though those are like 2% of abortions). That's the biggest chance to save the most babies that is actually attainable.
You will get at best 3 votes to overturn Roe v Wade assuming the justice that will fill RBG votes for overturning.
No chance.