Ugh. Have you been reading KafkaGoesWest’s posts? There’s 100 times more substance there than in anything you’ve posted.
You’re essentially arguing for us all to just rubber stamp anything our side proposes without thought... in other words you want us to be just like the left.
And you’re marginalizing and hurling epithets (shill, concern troll) against any discussion you disagree with. Again just like the left.
Linking a decision that she was part of (which was actually a decision that gave Pritzker the leeway to allow church worship services but not battle of the bands or picnics at the church property) just because the author of that decision who was not ACB made a passing comment about a concerning case, is consensus cracking.
If a SINGLE FUCKING POST contained a SINGLE FUCKING DECISION ACTUALLY AUTHORED BY ACB I would consider it relevant. So far, nothing.
I agree the decision was concerning. Barrett didn’t fucking write it, though.
You agree the decision was concerning. And while Barrett didn’t write it the decision she supported did cite it and therefore rely on it.
Meaning she relied on a decision that you yourself admit is concerning to form her judgment on an issue.
And you can’t seem to wrap your head around the fact that her reliance on a concerning (your own words) precedent to inform her views on an important issue is actually concerning to some of us?
I’m beginning to think that you’re the shill. For ACB.
It’s definitely concern trolling and verges on consensus cracking. Not even once has anyone linked a concerning opinion that she herself authored.
Ugh. Have you been reading KafkaGoesWest’s posts? There’s 100 times more substance there than in anything you’ve posted.
You’re essentially arguing for us all to just rubber stamp anything our side proposes without thought... in other words you want us to be just like the left.
And you’re marginalizing and hurling epithets (shill, concern troll) against any discussion you disagree with. Again just like the left.
No, I want SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENT.
Linking a decision that she was part of (which was actually a decision that gave Pritzker the leeway to allow church worship services but not battle of the bands or picnics at the church property) just because the author of that decision who was not ACB made a passing comment about a concerning case, is consensus cracking.
If a SINGLE FUCKING POST contained a SINGLE FUCKING DECISION ACTUALLY AUTHORED BY ACB I would consider it relevant. So far, nothing.
I agree the decision was concerning. Barrett didn’t fucking write it, though.
You agree the decision was concerning. And while Barrett didn’t write it the decision she supported did cite it and therefore rely on it.
Meaning she relied on a decision that you yourself admit is concerning to form her judgment on an issue.
And you can’t seem to wrap your head around the fact that her reliance on a concerning (your own words) precedent to inform her views on an important issue is actually concerning to some of us?
I’m beginning to think that you’re the shill. For ACB.