I heard that she simply said that yes, the states do have the power to have lockdowns. It doesn't mean she supports it or doesn't support it. Her job is to interpret the law and the law clearly says the states can do this. She's a judge, not a lawmaker.
Jacobsen v. Massachusetts was about compulsory vaccinations. In that decision the court decided governments could have fairly wide latitude in ordering compulsory vaccination. This was cited as a reason for denying the gop motion for pritzker.
Right, I think the concern from people saying she would allow the state to compel a vaccine use her willingness to cite Jacobsen as the reason for the concern.
I heard that she simply said that yes, the states do have the power to have lockdowns. It doesn't mean she supports it or doesn't support it. Her job is to interpret the law and the law clearly says the states can do this. She's a judge, not a lawmaker.
She cited Jacobsen V. Massachusetts in the Pritzker V. GOP ruling.
That ruling was specifically about disparate treatment of two groups, not forced vaccinations or the lockdown.
Jacobsen v. Massachusetts was about compulsory vaccinations. In that decision the court decided governments could have fairly wide latitude in ordering compulsory vaccination. This was cited as a reason for denying the gop motion for pritzker.
I meant the pritzker ruling was about the disparate treatment of groups under the lockdown. Citing Jacobsen was with regards to state power.
Right, I think the concern from people saying she would allow the state to compel a vaccine use her willingness to cite Jacobsen as the reason for the concern.
Gotcha