That's my thoughts as well but it's too late to do anything about it. Let's just hope we're proven wrong and she turns out to be exactly what we need in there.
That's how I feel, too. Time will tell. Same with Barr. And in the bigger, bigger picture, same with Trump if he gets a second term. The difference between great and absolutely legendary. And it's not even so much him and his ideas, more about whether the Swamp can continue to obstruct.
Don't be complacent. There are plenty of big state "conservatives" who think they're just as capable as running your life as the communists. There are a lot of ways to create terrible precedent that isn't as obvious as "bake the cake, bigot!"
You don't waste your 1st round draft pick and $20 million dollar contract only to say "They may suck, but at least they weren't as bad as the last guy"
I don't necessarily disagree with you but I'm not the one making the pick and there's nothing I can do about it now that it's happened. Just trying to look on the bright side of the issue. I'd rather have a nominal conservative or conservative leaning moderate than a Ginsburg any day of the week.
I get what you're saying, but SCOTUS decisions are binary. She could be just a little tiny bit right of RBG and comparatively better but a vote with the leftists is still a vote with the leftists at the end of the day.
The only thing bad about her I can find is her allowing the lockdown. Barnes thinks that means she's authoritarian whereas some others think that the case which was brought to her didn't do a good job at putting the right points and therefore she ruled based on that. Also if I can remember correctly, 2 other Trump appointed judges also ruled in favour in that case. So I am not sure.
As for 2A, she did have a pro 2A on one of the cases about a non violent felon being able to retain arms.
I replied to you on the other thread but will repeat here as well.
In the IL case it was narrowly argued, and not particularly well argued, by the IL GOP that Pritzker couldn't limit the number of people at political events if he had already exempted religious practice, which he had. The ruling was that religious practice is already protected under 1A and that governors do have the power to limit attendance at political activities, therefore as long as Pritzker wasn't picking and choosing in how those activities were treated, it was allowable.
Now, Pritzker sucks and the lockdowns suck. But the ruling wasn't "lockdowns yay or nay?"
Also, the panel was unanimous in denying the injunction including another Trump appointee.
That's my thoughts as well but it's too late to do anything about it. Let's just hope we're proven wrong and she turns out to be exactly what we need in there.
That's how I feel, too. Time will tell. Same with Barr. And in the bigger, bigger picture, same with Trump if he gets a second term. The difference between great and absolutely legendary. And it's not even so much him and his ideas, more about whether the Swamp can continue to obstruct.
I really want to like Barr. His speeches come across as genuine but it won't mean shit if all he does is sleep in his office.
Even if she's sub optimal compared to ginsburg she shifts the court away from liberal activism and towards the constitution
Don't be complacent. There are plenty of big state "conservatives" who think they're just as capable as running your life as the communists. There are a lot of ways to create terrible precedent that isn't as obvious as "bake the cake, bigot!"
You don't waste your 1st round draft pick and $20 million dollar contract only to say "They may suck, but at least they weren't as bad as the last guy"
I don't necessarily disagree with you but I'm not the one making the pick and there's nothing I can do about it now that it's happened. Just trying to look on the bright side of the issue. I'd rather have a nominal conservative or conservative leaning moderate than a Ginsburg any day of the week.
Have you heard of the Cleveland Browns?
I get what you're saying, but SCOTUS decisions are binary. She could be just a little tiny bit right of RBG and comparatively better but a vote with the leftists is still a vote with the leftists at the end of the day.
Time will tell the tale. All we can do is keep fighting and keep the faith till then.
For those criticizing ACB (in case it's her):
The only thing bad about her I can find is her allowing the lockdown. Barnes thinks that means she's authoritarian whereas some others think that the case which was brought to her didn't do a good job at putting the right points and therefore she ruled based on that. Also if I can remember correctly, 2 other Trump appointed judges also ruled in favour in that case. So I am not sure.
As for 2A, she did have a pro 2A on one of the cases about a non violent felon being able to retain arms.
I replied to you on the other thread but will repeat here as well.
In the IL case it was narrowly argued, and not particularly well argued, by the IL GOP that Pritzker couldn't limit the number of people at political events if he had already exempted religious practice, which he had. The ruling was that religious practice is already protected under 1A and that governors do have the power to limit attendance at political activities, therefore as long as Pritzker wasn't picking and choosing in how those activities were treated, it was allowable.
Now, Pritzker sucks and the lockdowns suck. But the ruling wasn't "lockdowns yay or nay?"
Also, the panel was unanimous in denying the injunction including another Trump appointee.
Yeah, Gorsuch fumbled the ball on the church cap, too. I see no caps, lockdowns or pandemics listed under religious liberties in the Constitution.
Here's the lockdown ruling:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/20-2175/20-2175-2020-09-03.html#
I think people should read it and make up their own minds about the ruling.
^
This they thinks they know more than Trump.