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.
You’ve spam posted this comment on a ton of posts. I appreciate reading your points, but you should make this it’s own post & share a link to it when it’s relevant to a comment you’d like to reply to.
“She adopted two kids from Haiti” is not a positive or negative. But muh immigration...did you read her dissent when the circuit struck down trumps ban based on usage of welfare, etc? no, I can answer for you, you didn’t.
As for the lockdowns: The circuit unanimously agreed that the gov allowing some church services didn’t mean they also had to allow political events because it’s a retarded argument that no judge would allow. They can just sue based on first amendment protections, like the religious groups did...
These points are literally just low information or intentional disinformation
They break their oaths to protect and defend the constitution daily -- Charge them with Treason!
I agree.
They should be lynched for Treason.
you mean
LYNCH?
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.
You’ve spam posted this comment on a ton of posts. I appreciate reading your points, but you should make this it’s own post & share a link to it when it’s relevant to a comment you’d like to reply to.
Offtopic spam.
She adopted two black kids from haiti and supported IL lockdowns. Not the best choice out there.
“She adopted two kids from Haiti” is not a positive or negative. But muh immigration...did you read her dissent when the circuit struck down trumps ban based on usage of welfare, etc? no, I can answer for you, you didn’t.
As for the lockdowns: The circuit unanimously agreed that the gov allowing some church services didn’t mean they also had to allow political events because it’s a retarded argument that no judge would allow. They can just sue based on first amendment protections, like the religious groups did...
These points are literally just low information or intentional disinformation
Now I can’t stop singing m m m my Corona. Your username! 😂