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.
"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."
Won't argue that. Spot on. I just don't agree with your sentiment that ACB is the second coming of Mao. I think you seek to sow division where there isn't any. ACB is a good choice that you seem to want to sacrifice at the alter of perfection.
I don't think she's Mao, sorry if I came off that way. Maybe she will have good rulings, but when it comes to the big things, it seems that the scales always tip in favor of a globalist agenda.
Since I have a bias towards small gov, I find it hard to get so amped by a scotus nom, especially one that is questionable, if only bc nobody knows anything about her.
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.
"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."
Won't argue that. Spot on. I just don't agree with your sentiment that ACB is the second coming of Mao. I think you seek to sow division where there isn't any. ACB is a good choice that you seem to want to sacrifice at the alter of perfection.
I don't think she's Mao, sorry if I came off that way. Maybe she will have good rulings, but when it comes to the big things, it seems that the scales always tip in favor of a globalist agenda.
Since I have a bias towards small gov, I find it hard to get so amped by a scotus nom, especially one that is questionable, if only bc nobody knows anything about her.