We want conservatives on the SC much the same way we want conservatives in Congress and in the Presidency. Each keeps the others in check and makes sure that one branch or another doesn't fuck things up. When an unconstitutional law is passed by congress, EO'd by a president, or set as precedent by a lower court, the SC is there to make sure it gets struck down.
On the other hand, when a completely constitutional order gets struck down by a liberal circuit judge, trying to legislate from the bench, we need a conservative SC to make sure that order goes through.
My entire point is we say we want to support conservative judges, but they hardly end up supporting us.
Being a "Constitutionalist" judge is just the nice way of saying "they are not as bad". Either way, the Constitution gets erroded, changed, or perceived as a living document.
For example, she will not help us overturn row v wade. So why do we care so much? Just bc it's a win for Trump, and we want to vicariously win though him?
The Constitution makes our local government more powerful than the supreme court. The Federal gov doesn't have to control us, we have local checks against them. And putting ACB on the bench isn't going to provide any checks within the fed gov, even if we hope it will.
The argument put forth in the complaint was that the “exemption” provided “religious speech” was equally compelling when applied to “political speech” since both fall under the protection of the First Amendment. They argued that creating an exemption for “religion” gatherings in the Orders, but not for “political” gatherings, made the Order unconstitutional on its face.
Court Response:
In the Seventh Circuit opinion, Judge Wood wrote that at this stage of the pandemic, Jacobsen ruled out any “general challenge” to Gov. Pritzker’s order under the Fourteenth Amendment deprivation of liberty claim.
This article pretty much makes my point: ACB won't support your 1A (or will restrict it) if there is a phoney situation like covid19?
This thing has been a false flag from the start, and lockdowns were ALWAYS a bad idea.
My bill of rights cannot be infringed, especially not bc of covid19.
I'll do my best.
We want conservatives on the SC much the same way we want conservatives in Congress and in the Presidency. Each keeps the others in check and makes sure that one branch or another doesn't fuck things up. When an unconstitutional law is passed by congress, EO'd by a president, or set as precedent by a lower court, the SC is there to make sure it gets struck down.
On the other hand, when a completely constitutional order gets struck down by a liberal circuit judge, trying to legislate from the bench, we need a conservative SC to make sure that order goes through.
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3886780/posts
^^^She recently uphelp unconstitutional lockdowns people.
My entire point is we say we want to support conservative judges, but they hardly end up supporting us.
Being a "Constitutionalist" judge is just the nice way of saying "they are not as bad". Either way, the Constitution gets erroded, changed, or perceived as a living document.
For example, she will not help us overturn row v wade. So why do we care so much? Just bc it's a win for Trump, and we want to vicariously win though him?
The Constitution makes our local government more powerful than the supreme court. The Federal gov doesn't have to control us, we have local checks against them. And putting ACB on the bench isn't going to provide any checks within the fed gov, even if we hope it will.
I've seen this copy-pasta'd so often that I no longer make lengthy replies. Just read this one: https://www.redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/09/26/attacks-from-the-right-on-judge-barretts-vote-in-case-regarding-illinois-lock-down-law-are-dishonest/
From your article:
The argument put forth in the complaint was that the “exemption” provided “religious speech” was equally compelling when applied to “political speech” since both fall under the protection of the First Amendment. They argued that creating an exemption for “religion” gatherings in the Orders, but not for “political” gatherings, made the Order unconstitutional on its face.
Court Response: In the Seventh Circuit opinion, Judge Wood wrote that at this stage of the pandemic, Jacobsen ruled out any “general challenge” to Gov. Pritzker’s order under the Fourteenth Amendment deprivation of liberty claim.
This article pretty much makes my point: ACB won't support your 1A (or will restrict it) if there is a phoney situation like covid19?
This thing has been a false flag from the start, and lockdowns were ALWAYS a bad idea.
My bill of rights cannot be infringed, especially not bc of covid19.