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!