Barrett is Pro-Lockdown Traitor to the Constitution

[James_Madison_Lives]

There is no reason Trump's anti-lockdown base should be happy with this bitch. Do not believe media "conservative home run."

She voted with the three-judge panel, no dissent.

https://cookcountyrecord.com/stories...ombat-covid-19

A federal appeals panel says Gov. JB Pritzker is free to limit Republican political gatherings in the name of fighting COVID-19, but also allowed under the law to give more leeway to religious gatherings and Black Lives Matter protests, if he chooses.

On Sept. 3, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the arguments presented by the Illinois Republican Party and other plaintiffs that Pritzker had not improperly discriminated against them and other political organizations by refusing to allow them to gather in groups of more than 50 people while Illinois remains in a state of emergency because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The ruling:
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000...umQBSxQoAt2zQo

[dude58677]

This needs more attention!

[revgen]

[John-G]

Trump has a weird habit of picking horrible people to positions in govt. I wouldn't be surprised if this one is a cfr candidate. Heck, some people like anti-globalist thinks this is to be expected from all Trump selections

[John-G]

Trump has a weird habit of picking horrible people to positions in govt. I wouldn't be surprised if this one is a cfr candidate. Heck, some people like anti-globalist thinks this is to be expected from all Trump selections

I know, I know, he also picked that one ambassador to Afghanistan who is a libertarian. Good pick but I rather he get the SCOTUS pick right over the Ambassador of the UN

[familydog]

Barrett would be a complete disaster if she gets confirmed. Robert Barnes has done an amazing job at arguing why.

[Working Poor]

I think this needs a bumping.

[James_Madison_Lives]

Barrett would be a complete disaster if she gets confirmed. Robert Barnes has done an amazing job at arguing why.

Here is the full pro-lockdown ruling Barrett was a part of (three judge panel, no dissent).

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000...7Ai2a1TG-hA8y0

[enhanced_deficit]

Per Drudge Report:

Trump is expected to nominate Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court

By Paula Reid, Ben Tracy, Fin Gomez, Arden Farhi and Melissa Quinn
Updated on: September 25, 2020 / 8:13 PM / CBS News

Washington — President Trump is expected to nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court, CBS News has confirmed, according to multiple sources involved in or familiar with the selection process.

It's possible Mr. Trump could change his mind, but at this point, Barrett is expected to be announced as the president's choice Saturday afternoon at the White House.
The president, asked by reporters at Joint Base Andrews Friday evening whether he has made a decision on a nominee, replied, "In my own mind, yes." Though he would not confirm that Barrett is his pick, he did call her "outstanding."

cbsnews.com/news/amy-coney-barrett-trump-supreme-court-intended-pick-nominates/


Potentially Related

Mother Arrested at Ohio Football Game For Not Wearing a Mask, Officer Does Not Wear Mask

Trump mobilizing U.S. military to deliver coronavirus vaccine

Trump just knee-capped Governor Kemp
Niles Edward Francis

3h
Police cars revolving light
#BREAKING: President Trump says that he told Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp that he disagrees "strongly" with his decision to open up certain businesses at the end of this week. #gapol #Coronavirus

I think will make all other rep governors think long and hard about opening up

[Matt Collins]

Can anyone translate this from lawyer speak?

[dannno]

Can anyone translate this from lawyer speak?

Yes.

I don't have all the facts, but from my understanding this was not a "pro-lockdown" political decision, but a narrow legal rejection of the sketchy argument the plaintiffs were presenting:

The plaintiffs were making a weak legal argument against state-level lockdowns on the basis of the 14th Amendment, and it would have arguably been a stretch to accept it. Doing so might also set a precedent eroding states' rights in other cases where an expansive interpretation of the 14th Amendment is more dangerous...kind of like how a stretchy interpretation of the 9th Amendment got us Roe vs. Wade. If you don't see yet how that might be dangerous with the 14th, think about where the farthest reaches of LGBTQP stuff is going, where the P stands for Pedophile.

Saying "We can't kill the lockdowns on these grounds" is not the same thing as saying, "The lockdowns are okay." Unlike the almost-70-year-old Saint Benitez, being a serious Supreme Court candidate means she doesn't [yet?] have the luxury of ignoring the plaintiffs' actual arguments and making better ones FOR them that they never actually introduced. (YMMV on whether judges making pro-Constitutional arguments the plaintiffs didn't think of, is being an activist judge.) She had to go with what they presented, and it seems like they dropped the ball.

It's still possible that she's a snake in the grass, but jumping to that conclusion based on this decision seems prejudicial to me. In the past she's ruled for expansive interpretations of both the 2nd and 4th Amendments, and that combination is generally reassuring: The first one shows she's no left-winger, while the last one shows she's no Kavanaugh-like neocon.

[revgen]

Trump has officially appointed ACB. I'm disappointed, but it's still a step-up from Ginsberg.