I was reluctant to accept her because I heard she made a bad ruling regarding the lockdowns. And because I feel like these lockdowns are the most unconstitutional thing ever done accept for slavery.
I don’t know what’s in her heart. And I cannot read her mind. But the reporting on that is fake news. I will copy here much of a prior post about it. I’m a lawyer and I’ve read it.
Remember that good judges address only arguments brought to them. In our system, they do not go fishing for their own (incidentally that’s why Sullivan is so wrong on Flynn).
So the ruling is limited to the arguments made. The plaintiffs did not make broad arguments that lockdowns are unconstitutional. The Pennsylvania case that held them unconstitutional was based on a different argument—a line of argument not made at all in the IL case.
The narrow question in the IL case was whether the fact that religious activity was carved out for PREFERENTIAL treatment under the lockdown orders renders the rest of the orders unconstitutional. That is, the complaint was about UNEQUAL treatment of religion and other speech.
The court rejected that argument. First of all the court stated it was afraid that holding the orders wrongful for being unequal (religion better than other speech activity) would mean the IL governor could just fix the problem by further restricting religion, instead of looser rules for everything else. The judges hated that idea.
But more importantly the court simply held that religion DOES enjoy special status under the Constitution, and therefore there is nothing wrong about treating it better than general “speech.”
Direct quote: “ A careful look at the Supreme Court’s Religion Clause cases, coupled with the fact that EO43 is designed to give greater leeway to the exercise of religion, convinces us that the speech that accompanies religious exercise has a privileged position under the First Amendment, and that EO43 permissibly accommodates religious activities.”
Thanks for posting this. Based on this, it does sound like she has a constitutional jurisprudence and was ruling based on the specific arguments of the case. The more I think about it, the more comfortable I feel about the pick. How many times have we seen insane rulings that take into account items not even mentioned in the case arguments?
Something about the jacobson decision being cited from 1905 in the decision kind of concerns me because I'm not big on the idea of forced innoculation.
I’m more concerned senate republicans are going to argue over this and cause a scene right before the election. Democrats will read out her Scalia comments and vote no pretty quietly hoping the RINOs ruin it for us.
Not getting her confirmed after Trump nominated her while we have the numbers would truly be fucking disgraceful
If you get a chance check out "The Federalist Society"...it'll make more sense. The Wikipedia page hasn't been leftyfied yet. Barrett was a member off and on for a few years the past few decades.
Lagoa was appointed by Jeb Bush and had the support of 20+ Senate Democrats during confirmation. She also conveniently has almost zero judicial history to look over...
I dont think we have to worry. She's against Obamacare and of course abortion. Dems hate her and are mad already. They knew it was gonna be here weeks ago, and Don Lemon was on CNN talking about getting rid of the electoral college and adding puerto rico as a state LOL They are TERRIFIED. She won't Roberts us.
Not my first choice but I’ll stand behind Trump’s decision. Don’t Roberts us, ACB.
everyone’s saying she’s Robert’s 2.0, but in reality she’s Scalia 2.0
I was reluctant to accept her because I heard she made a bad ruling regarding the lockdowns. And because I feel like these lockdowns are the most unconstitutional thing ever done accept for slavery.
CNN: Pro Trump site claims freeing the slaves was unconstitutional
Seth Rich and Scalia will be walking out from behind the curtain together.
I mean, didn’t she..?
I do get JR2 vibes from her, but I trust Trump. I know an older Cuban would be 100% a solid pick, but we’ll see about ACB in time.
Can’t be worse than RBG at least
Can you be more specific on what you mean by “vibes”? And why?
What about ACB’s career specifically gives you “John Roberts vibes”
I don’t know what’s in her heart. And I cannot read her mind. But the reporting on that is fake news. I will copy here much of a prior post about it. I’m a lawyer and I’ve read it.
Remember that good judges address only arguments brought to them. In our system, they do not go fishing for their own (incidentally that’s why Sullivan is so wrong on Flynn).
So the ruling is limited to the arguments made. The plaintiffs did not make broad arguments that lockdowns are unconstitutional. The Pennsylvania case that held them unconstitutional was based on a different argument—a line of argument not made at all in the IL case.
The narrow question in the IL case was whether the fact that religious activity was carved out for PREFERENTIAL treatment under the lockdown orders renders the rest of the orders unconstitutional. That is, the complaint was about UNEQUAL treatment of religion and other speech.
The court rejected that argument. First of all the court stated it was afraid that holding the orders wrongful for being unequal (religion better than other speech activity) would mean the IL governor could just fix the problem by further restricting religion, instead of looser rules for everything else. The judges hated that idea.
But more importantly the court simply held that religion DOES enjoy special status under the Constitution, and therefore there is nothing wrong about treating it better than general “speech.”
Direct quote: “ A careful look at the Supreme Court’s Religion Clause cases, coupled with the fact that EO43 is designed to give greater leeway to the exercise of religion, convinces us that the speech that accompanies religious exercise has a privileged position under the First Amendment, and that EO43 permissibly accommodates religious activities.”
Thanks for posting this. Based on this, it does sound like she has a constitutional jurisprudence and was ruling based on the specific arguments of the case. The more I think about it, the more comfortable I feel about the pick. How many times have we seen insane rulings that take into account items not even mentioned in the case arguments?
That really is a stain on her career so far. Ideally it'll be the only major one and I hope she can follow Scalias legacy
Did you know Kavanaugh also refused to take the case up (cuz he agreed)
But I'll bite, what exactly do you think the ruling said?
I didn't read the whole thing there is like 22 pages. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/20-2175/20-2175-2020-09-03.html
Something about the jacobson decision being cited from 1905 in the decision kind of concerns me because I'm not big on the idea of forced innoculation.
Whether she is Roberts or not is yet to be seen, but her record says she's no Scalia.
Agree, she was sold to Trump as someone who worked under Scalia so must be same as having Scalia.
Trump or advisers did not bother to dig deeper in to her past rulings?
It's disinfo. People are believing rumormilling likely started by those in opposition to her and seeded lies into our movement.
Easy people. There is literally nothing to call her a Roberts on. Nothing. IF that changes, then it changes. So far? No.
Yep.
International adoption
Still better than whoever Hillary would've replaced RBG with.
I’m more concerned senate republicans are going to argue over this and cause a scene right before the election. Democrats will read out her Scalia comments and vote no pretty quietly hoping the RINOs ruin it for us. Not getting her confirmed after Trump nominated her while we have the numbers would truly be fucking disgraceful
Perhaps Trump could put forward a second nomination and have that one nominated in record time
They have the votes. This will move along fine.
If you get a chance check out "The Federalist Society"...it'll make more sense. The Wikipedia page hasn't been leftyfied yet. Barrett was a member off and on for a few years the past few decades.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society
I like how advocating that the law follow the constitution is considered “moving the judiciary to the right.”
Fucking Whacko world.
Lagoa was my first choice....but she might fill Breyers spot lol
Lagoa was appointed by Jeb Bush and had the support of 20+ Senate Democrats during confirmation. She also conveniently has almost zero judicial history to look over...
Fair enough.
Dont know much about her, have heard some good things but she just kind of stands out like a diversity pick to me.
She has been a law professor at Notre Dame for years and has a long time to contemplate the Constitution.
Anyone praised by Rubio and Jeb is a hard pass NO!
That rules out basically everyone in Florida prior to Rick Scott's election to the governorship, and a lot of people after that.
And?
I dont think we have to worry. She's against Obamacare and of course abortion. Dems hate her and are mad already. They knew it was gonna be here weeks ago, and Don Lemon was on CNN talking about getting rid of the electoral college and adding puerto rico as a state LOL They are TERRIFIED. She won't Roberts us.