Religious beliefs should never be a litmus test for a Supreme Court justice. At this point, with legal abortion up to the point of birth and 6 year old boys taking hormone blockers to become 7 year old girls, a little religion on the court might not be a bad thing.
I think Lagoa is the right choice politically. The dems can't attack her without losing Florida and exposing the all the dem candidates to vicious voter backlash. She would be the easiest confirmation before election day.
The Governor of Illinois issued a blanket lockdown on basically everything but left exemptions for religious gatherings and a few other things. The state republican party wanted to have rallies/meetings above 50 people and so they sued saying that it's not fair that they shouldn't be allowed to meet when churches could do so.
ACB and the other two justices said this was a horseshit argument since the 1A gives religious institutions special protections and insulation from the government. And it was.
I would have liked a 100% "Fuck these lockdowns" attitude from her, but it wasn't the gloom and doom scenario that some have been asserting lately about how she's pro-lockdown.
She exercised judicial restraint. The question before her was "Is a political party eligible for the same exemptions and protections as a religious institution?" and she said "No"
The judge has to look at the arguments being presented, not bring in some extra argument that may or may not be relevant.
Roberts justified Obamacare because "in his opinion" the penalty for not having health insurance wasn't a "penalty", it was a "tax" which was legal.
Nobody made that argument. Roberts pulled it straight out of his ass in order to justify the law. That's a bunch of bullshit is what it is. But we can't do the same thing in reverse. ACB and the other two judges were asked a specific question: Is the Illinois GOP's claim that they should be allowed to gather like a church valid?
A district court, a 3 panel 7th circuit court, and Kavanaugh all said No.
GEOTIS is usually several moves ahead of the Libtards. Make 'em think Amy, so they can spend all of their time planning their "Complete Investigation" of the wrong person. Then select the Judge candidate who is least like her, but maybe even more conservative! Gonna be fun watching the heads explode on cable news tonight!
We have all known it was going to be ACB for years now especially after Kavanaugh. This last minute effort to push Lagoa because of identity politics is straight out of the Dems playbook.
Religious beliefs should never be a litmus test for a Supreme Court justice. At this point, with legal abortion up to the point of birth and 6 year old boys taking hormone blockers to become 7 year old girls, a little religion on the court might not be a bad thing.
I still think it's Barbara Lagoa and this is a standard head fake, we will see
I think Lagoa is the right choice politically. The dems can't attack her without losing Florida and exposing the all the dem candidates to vicious voter backlash. She would be the easiest confirmation before election day.
Still voting trump
She did not.
Illinois GOP vs Pritzker
The Governor of Illinois issued a blanket lockdown on basically everything but left exemptions for religious gatherings and a few other things. The state republican party wanted to have rallies/meetings above 50 people and so they sued saying that it's not fair that they shouldn't be allowed to meet when churches could do so.
ACB and the other two justices said this was a horseshit argument since the 1A gives religious institutions special protections and insulation from the government. And it was.
The Illinois GOP appealed to the SCOTUS but Kavanaugh (who oversees that Circuit) denied the motion without comment. https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-rejects-bid-by-illinois-gop-to-avoid-limits-on-gatherings-11593906161
I would have liked a 100% "Fuck these lockdowns" attitude from her, but it wasn't the gloom and doom scenario that some have been asserting lately about how she's pro-lockdown.
She exercised judicial restraint. The question before her was "Is a political party eligible for the same exemptions and protections as a religious institution?" and she said "No"
Because to do so would've been judicial activism.
The judge has to look at the arguments being presented, not bring in some extra argument that may or may not be relevant.
Roberts justified Obamacare because "in his opinion" the penalty for not having health insurance wasn't a "penalty", it was a "tax" which was legal.
Nobody made that argument. Roberts pulled it straight out of his ass in order to justify the law. That's a bunch of bullshit is what it is. But we can't do the same thing in reverse. ACB and the other two judges were asked a specific question: Is the Illinois GOP's claim that they should be allowed to gather like a church valid?
A district court, a 3 panel 7th circuit court, and Kavanaugh all said No.
GEOTIS is usually several moves ahead of the Libtards. Make 'em think Amy, so they can spend all of their time planning their "Complete Investigation" of the wrong person. Then select the Judge candidate who is least like her, but maybe even more conservative! Gonna be fun watching the heads explode on cable news tonight!
Trust
We have all known it was going to be ACB for years now especially after Kavanaugh. This last minute effort to push Lagoa because of identity politics is straight out of the Dems playbook.
How many rulings does each Judge have under their belt?