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.
Can you show me or provide the source and links and an explanation where she currently supports lockdowns and mandatory vaccines ?
Also, isn’t the president himself pretty supportive of w Covid vaccine? He’s constantly mentioning it in a positive light and gushing graces and positive words on those working on it. Saying how it will be available soon and for all Americans who choose to want one. Continues to say the left hates that he’s doing so well with ushering in a vaccine so quickly.
Literally every mainstream politician supported vaccines, until Trump announced the covid vaccine may be coming soon, then the Dems, who want to force vaccinations on everyone, became anti vaxx.
Trump is supporting the vaccine but not forcing it, and it would be political suicide for his presidency to be anti vaccine in his rhetoric when so many people are brainwashed into thinking the vaccine is the key to opening
These are actually good points. There may be levers in her background, and a good Catholic takes care of the abandoned children in his own eye before importing the spec from another country. Smacks of the kind of virtue signalling typical from the weak Catholics who are destroying the church now.
BUT even another Roberts is better than an RBG or whoever Hillary would have nominated. Iff Trump gets 5-6 picks, maybe conservatives have a good shot at eeking out a 5-4 win most of the time.
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.
The basic gist there is there was a special exemption given to religious services, and the IL GOP wanted to have the same cap. And everyone said no, and said they would be watching BLM to make sure the Gov didn't give them unfair access.
Kav agreed and rejected the IL GOP's appeal
That' imo is a fair ruling.
As for vaccines, I work in healthcare, so I suspect we have very different opinions on vaccines pede. Let's not fight today, we, are not each other's enemy
I'm against MANDATORY anything. I'm suspicious of anything remotely Bill Gates because he wants to kill people to control the population AND he wants tracers in vaccines. Those tracers will be used to roll out the mark of the beast prohibiting anyone without it from being able to buy or sell ANYTHING. Once again, draconian punishment which is the equivalent of a MANDATE.
My opinion on vaccines is pretty neutral. My grandmother worked in Jonas Salks lab in the 50s. I'm not her to fight. If anything just have a meaningful debate where I hope to come out with more information than coming in. So even if you are for forced innoculation (I am not), we can always respectfully disagree.
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”
Supporting Vaccines and lockdowns
Big no no.
Can you show me or provide the source and links and an explanation where she currently supports lockdowns and mandatory vaccines ?
Also, isn’t the president himself pretty supportive of w Covid vaccine? He’s constantly mentioning it in a positive light and gushing graces and positive words on those working on it. Saying how it will be available soon and for all Americans who choose to want one. Continues to say the left hates that he’s doing so well with ushering in a vaccine so quickly.
Do you not support President Trump either?
Literally every mainstream politician supported vaccines, until Trump announced the covid vaccine may be coming soon, then the Dems, who want to force vaccinations on everyone, became anti vaxx.
Trump is supporting the vaccine but not forcing it, and it would be political suicide for his presidency to be anti vaccine in his rhetoric when so many people are brainwashed into thinking the vaccine is the key to opening
So, typical average female.
She has international adoption just like Roberts.
And from a third world country where corruption is endemic and Hillary foundation operated.
Not to mention that only a Marxist would adopt black children.
I fear she's going to be worse than Roberts. She's probably a Democrat plant.
These are actually good points. There may be levers in her background, and a good Catholic takes care of the abandoned children in his own eye before importing the spec from another country. Smacks of the kind of virtue signalling typical from the weak Catholics who are destroying the church now.
BUT even another Roberts is better than an RBG or whoever Hillary would have nominated. Iff Trump gets 5-6 picks, maybe conservatives have a good shot at eeking out a 5-4 win most of the time.
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.
Oh I thought you meant the lock down case
The basic gist there is there was a special exemption given to religious services, and the IL GOP wanted to have the same cap. And everyone said no, and said they would be watching BLM to make sure the Gov didn't give them unfair access.
Kav agreed and rejected the IL GOP's appeal
That' imo is a fair ruling.
As for vaccines, I work in healthcare, so I suspect we have very different opinions on vaccines pede. Let's not fight today, we, are not each other's enemy
I'm against MANDATORY anything. I'm suspicious of anything remotely Bill Gates because he wants to kill people to control the population AND he wants tracers in vaccines. Those tracers will be used to roll out the mark of the beast prohibiting anyone without it from being able to buy or sell ANYTHING. Once again, draconian punishment which is the equivalent of a MANDATE.
My opinion on vaccines is pretty neutral. My grandmother worked in Jonas Salks lab in the 50s. I'm not her to fight. If anything just have a meaningful debate where I hope to come out with more information than coming in. So even if you are for forced innoculation (I am not), we can always respectfully disagree.