Lot of wishful thinking about "headfakes" and he's going to pick someone else, because there is a pretty obvious demoralization campaign against ACB going on so we don't get excited for putting a third justice to the scotus. Nobody is perfect and all, but the site went from liking her to trashing her basically as soon as RGB died. I find it suspicious.
Pasted from another ACB thread, take it as you will:
The entire premise of the Republicans' suit is that if the exemption from the 50-person cap on gatherings for free-exercise activities were found to be unconstitutional (or if it were to be struck down based on the allegedly ideologically driven enforcement strategy), they would then be free to gather in whatever numbers they wished. But when disparate treatment of two groups occurs, the state is free to erase that discrepancy in any way that it wishes. See, e.g., Stanton v. Stanton, 429 U.S. 501, 504 n.4 (1977) ("[W]e emphasize that Utah is free to adopt either 18 or 21 as the age of majority for both males and females for childsupport purposes. The only constraint on its power to choose is ... that the two sexes must be treated equally."). In other words, the state is free to "equalize up" or to "equalize down." If there were a problem with the religious exercise carve-out (and we emphasize that we find no such problem), the state would be entitled to return to a regime in which even religious gatherings are subject to the mandatory cap. See Elim, 962 F.3d 341. This would leave the Republicans no better off than they are today.
The IL GOP was arguing against the exemption that IL gave to religious activities, not for it. Furthermore, it's not the job of the appellate court to dictate how the state should remedy this even if they had ruled that the exemption wasn't legal. So, as they explained, even if they had ruled in favor of the IL GOP, this would not indicate the legal remedy they claimed would be necessary.
In short, the IL GOP made a terrible argument and lost. The appellate court ruled on the law in consideration of the facts and precedent. That's literally their job. That's also what you should want if you really care about an originalist jurist. It's not the job of a judge to martial better arguments on behalf of plaintiffs or defendants.
Lot of wishful thinking about "headfakes" and he's going to pick someone else, because there is a pretty obvious demoralization campaign against ACB going on so we don't get excited for putting a third justice to the scotus. Nobody is perfect and all, but the site went from liking her to trashing her basically as soon as RGB died. I find it suspicious.
It's not a out RBG dying it's about her recent ruling in regards to government being able to force lockdowns.
Which I'm also reading is misleading criticism.
Please elaborate. I've read the decision and it wasn't misleading t o me but I'm open to hearing your side.
Pasted from another ACB thread, take it as you will:
The IL GOP was arguing against the exemption that IL gave to religious activities, not for it. Furthermore, it's not the job of the appellate court to dictate how the state should remedy this even if they had ruled that the exemption wasn't legal. So, as they explained, even if they had ruled in favor of the IL GOP, this would not indicate the legal remedy they claimed would be necessary.
In short, the IL GOP made a terrible argument and lost. The appellate court ruled on the law in consideration of the facts and precedent. That's literally their job. That's also what you should want if you really care about an originalist jurist. It's not the job of a judge to martial better arguments on behalf of plaintiffs or defendants.
Thanks. Will re-read and digest.