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.
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.