Help! Amy Coney Barrett is a Huge RINO - Establishment, Big-Tech, Big Govt, Big Corporations, whatever ...

And horrible on the Lockdowns! And on Forced Vaccines!

Judge Amy Coney Barrett Recently Approved Democrat COVID-19 Lockdown Policies -

[bigleaguepolitics.com]

Judge Amy Coney Barrett has emerged as the choice of Conservative Twitter to be the successor on the Supreme Court to replace deceased former justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died on Friday after many bouts of cancer.

However, Barrett’s record is troubling on many issues, with a ruling that gives Democrats in Illinois blanket authority to shut down society based on COVID-19 mass hysteria standing out as particularly heinous.

Barrett concurred with the majority in Illinois Republican Party et al. v. J.B. Pritzker, Governor of Illinois to keep the illegal lockdown in place and allow Democrats to rip up the Constitution under the guise of safety. She hid behind the precedent of Jacobsen v. Massachusetts (1905) in an attempt to avoid culpability for her decision.

Latest: Rival Candidate Spreads Fake News Attacks Against Anti-Lockdown Hero Shelley Luther

“At least at this stage of the pandemic, Jacobson takes off the table any general challenge to [Pritzker’s executive order] based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of liberty,” the majority opinion read in the case.

It continued: “[W]hile in the face of a pandemic the Governor of Illinois was not compelled to make a special dispensation for religious activities, see Elim, nothing in the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment barred him from doing so. As in the cases reconciling the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, all that the Governor did was to limit to a certain degree the burden on religious exercise that [the governor’s executive order] imposed.”

While Barrett rolls over to the far left and allows Democrats to rip up the Constitution, other judges are actually living up to their oath, such as the Trump-appointed District Judge in Pennsylvania, William S. Stickman.

In his ruling, Stickman refused to hide behind precedent to allow the constitution to be destroyed by Democrats. He effectively deep-sixed Pennsylvania’s lockdown and obliterated the abominable Jacobson decision.

He wrote: “Jacobson was decided over a century ago. Since that time, there has been substantial development of federal constitutional law in the area of civil liberties… That century of development has seen the creation of tiered levels of scrutiny for constitutional claims. They did not exist when Jacobson was decided. […]”

“The Court shares the concerns expressed by Justice Alito… and believes that an extraordinarily deferential standard based on Jacobson is not appropriate,” Stickman added.

Patriotic attorney Robert Barnes has levied additional criticism against Barrett for her unwillingness to stand up to Democrat overreach.

“For example, Barrett, I would oppose her nomination personally. So I would do whatever I can to see her nomination fail. I have no interest in seeing someone like that on the bench,” Barnes explained during an interview on the Viva Frei YouTube channel.

“She comes from the old money corporate South, a world I’m familiar with and the kind of people I’d never want to see in positions of power… That’s the world she comes from. Her dad was a big Shell oil corporate lawyer,” he continued.

Barnes explained how Barrett’s history working as a Clerk for deceased former Justice Antonin Scalia is giving the false impression that she shares his staunch originalist beliefs when that is not in fact the case. He explained that her rise is similar to that of Chief Justice John Roberts, whose record of extreme cowardice on the bench has harmed the nation immeasurably.

“This is how Justice Roberts got on the bench. You do two things if you’re on the Republican side of the aisle: You let people know that you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned even if you don’t believe that… And you play the corporate side of the equation,” he said.

“But most importantly, you get that Justice and his extended intellectual heavyweights to lobby for you to be appointed to the judicial bench down the road… That’s why people are pushing Barrett,” Barnes added.

Barnes highlighted some of Barrett’s worst decisions in a blistering Twitter thread.

#Barrett exclaimed the benefits of Jacobson, the decision that green-lit forced vaccines & carved out an emergency exception to Constitutional protection in "public health" or "emergency" cases used to justify forced sterilizations & detention camps. Read: [t.co]

— Robert Barnes (@Barnes_Law) September 22, 2020

Another example: a highly dubious stop that the media can easily make into #Barrett justifying stopping drivers for "driving while black" that she prevented from reaching a jury trial despite the cops sudden memory loss in the case. [t.co]

— Robert Barnes (@Barnes_Law) September 22, 2020

#Barrett justified discriminating against someone participating in protests over the killing of his brother, in a case that will make easy headlines for her critics to make her look the misconduct-excuser her actual record says she is. [t.co]

— Robert Barnes (@Barnes_Law) September 22, 2020

You were ALREADY screwed and I'm not talking sexually...

(What a drama queen)...

I just heard from Mark Levin that Trump's picking Lockdown Barrett - Levin and all the other Conservatives thinks she's great - almost nobody knows she's a Trojan Horse - RINO. So now we'll have 4 RINOs on the Supreme Court. Great

They can all take turns voting with the Libs and screwing us over, like Roberts, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been doing. If any of this Coronavirus lockdown atrocity goes to the Supreme Court, the decision won't be on the side of "The Constitution", Freedom and Liberty.

Quote
Jennifer
Freedom and Liberty.

Freedom? You're about as FREE as a Victoria Crowned Pigeon locked in a CAGE that's locked in an ultra-rich persons New York City highrise...

(((You have absolutely NO idea, and because of all the brain-washing, it's now SELF-INDUCED!!!)))



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2020 05:30AM by NuNativs.

@Jennifer. I'm no fan of A.C.B.for the reasons you list, but what got my goat is her pretending to be "conservative" (if that means anything anymore) by adopting 2 children while having 5 of her own already. "Conservative" women with 7 kids avoid high faluting careers and look after their kids. Nobody says a mother has to stay in the house 24/7 and never have a life outside the home, but she is carrying her gargantuan ambition to embarrassing extremes.

And, oh yes, to show us how very, very open minded she is, those 2 babies are from Haiti.

Hi Horsea!

I was actually going to post that I could be wrong in my initial assessment of Amy Barrett based on the article I read from Big League Politics that I posted in my original post. A couple days after this article was written, when it became known that conservatives were piling on about the Illinois Lockdown Ruling of Amy Barrett, there were a few articles out there which explained the nuance of the ruling. Here's one -

I should have corrected this sooner, but I've been busy the last couple days.

Barrett Did Not Affirm the Illinois Lockdown Order

What she actually did was to prioritize religious liberty.

[amgreatness.com]

Twitter is awash with false claims that Judge Amy Coney Barrett should not be nominated to the Supreme Court because she supported the draconian lockdown orders issued by Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker. More mendaciously, some are claiming that she supported the Democrat Pritzker in excusing violent rioters from the lockdown requirements through which ordinary law abiding citizens are required to suffer.

This falsehood is magnified because it obscures what Barrett actually did in the case: she affirmed a hard-won exemption for religious worship from the generally odious lockdown.

The plaintiff in the case, the Illinois Republican Party, challenged only the worship exemption (not the lockdown generally), arguing that it was wrong to exempt only religious services from the lockdown. Why the GOP geniuses didn’t just challenge the constitutionality of subjecting their own political activities to the lockdown is anybody’s guess.

But given the argument the Republicans in fact made, Barrett concluded that religious worship occupies such an elevated status, even as compared to other First Amendment-protected rights, that it was not categorically illegal for Pritzker to limit the exemption to religious services.

Again, the Illinois Republican establishment was not challenging the lockdown order generally (or anything to do with failing to enforce the orders against rioters). Federal judges aren’t supposed to go beyond the issues raised by the parties in order to reach points that they would prefer to rule on. We call judges who engage in that practice by a familiar name: “activists.”

Those who are debating the merits of Judge Barrett’s nomination should at least get the facts straight about the cases she rules in, and what her legal rulings actually say. When you consider that she strongly endorsed a very protective view of religious liberty, Barrett may be exactly the one religious judge conservatives want on the Supreme Court to stand against waffling from Chief Justice John Roberts.

Here's the other articler I read that goes into more detail about the Ruling -

Attacks From the Right on Judge Barrett’s Vote in Case Regarding Illinois Lock-Down Law Are Dishonest

[www.redstate.com]

I have been responding on Twitter to a series of attacks on Judge Amy Coney Barrett from “conservatives” who find fault with the fact that she joined a 3-0 decision in the Seventh Circuit case of Illinois Republican Party v. Pritzker, which upheld the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction that would have kept Illinois from enforcing Gov. Pritzker’s “lock-down” order — supposedly — to the extent it prohibited in-person meetings of GOP party members for planning and campaigning purposes during the 2020 election cycle.

The Seventh Circuit decision was authored by Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood, and she was joined in the decision by Circuit Court Judges Amy Coney Barrett and Amy St. Eve — both nominated to the Court by Pres. Trump.

A brief aside about Judge St. Eve — she was appointed to the District Court in Chicago by President Bush 43. In the 1990s she was a member of Ken Starr’s “Whitewater” investigation team and was part of the prosecution of Jim and Susan McDougal, as well as Gov. Jim Guy Tucker in Arkansas. She served as a District Court judge for SIXTEEN years before Pres. Trump elevated her to the Seventh Circuit. Anyone who suggests she does not understand preliminary injunction matters or procedures is just an IDIOT.

And she joined right along in the 3-0 decision with Judge Barrett affirming the denial of the Illinois GOP’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

So what happened, and why has it generated “anti-Barrett” sentiment from the right against her nomination?

(Explanation at the link)

BTW, the Conservatives who misunderstood this ruling and felt Barrett was ruling for the lockdowns, characterized the case as a ruling in favor of Governor Pritzner because he's a Democrat and A BLM/ANTIFA Sympathizer. He at one point joined the BLM/ANTIFA rioters in the streets. He was/is 'on the side of' the Rioters/domestic terrorists - who do not have to abide by the Masks and Only-50-can-people-can-gather and Must Social Distancing. So not allowing the GOP to gather was 'Wrong', hypocritical, etc., according to the Conservatives who didn't like the outcome of the Ruling.

Also, btw, I forgot to mention that on his TV Show, the day of the announcement that Trump had chosen ACB, Mark Levin said that Barbara Lagoa - who I wanted instead of ACB after reading the article about the lockdown issue - didn't have a long enough record or experience that could be used as an evaluation, and that Levin said that he had told Trump that.

I guess we may be finding out sooner than later what Amy Barrett is made of when the Election is contested and it goes to the Supreme Court for a ruling. Because already the Democrats are saying that Barrett must recuse herself from taking part . So if she recuses herself on the election issue

@Jennifer. Thank you for all that additional info. She still ain't my kind. None of them are, to tell the truth. What can you expect in a dissolving civilization, anyway.

That Trump felt he had to choose a womah shows he is a weakling.

Yeah, I didn't like that, either. I hate it when he panders to The Left.

This article explains how the Conservatives interpreted her GOP ruling to be in favor of Pritzner's support for BLM/ANTIFA - a double standard.

Court rejects Illinois GOP's challenge to governor's lockdown order

[www.msn.com]

A federal appeals court has turned down the Illinois Republican Party’s bid to block a coronavirus-related lockdown order in that state that limits political gatherings — and most other in-person events — to no more than 50 people.

A three-judge panel that included two Trump appointees unanimously rejected the state GOP’s request for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the order issued by Gov. J.B. Pritzker.

Lawyers for the Republican Party argued that Pritzker’s decision in June to exempt churches and other religious organizations from the cap undermined the governor’s ability to leave that limit in place against political assemblies, which also enjoy special protection under the Constitution.

But the opinion, released Thursday by the Chicago-based 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, held that the exemption for religion Pritzker issued under some legal and political pressure from religious groups about two months ago did not foreclose the state’s ability to regulate political events as part of efforts to stem spread of the virus.

Supreme Court precedent “does not compel the Governor to treat all gatherings alike, whether they be of Catholics, Lutherans, Orthodox Jews, Republicans, Democrats, University of Illinois alumni, Chicago Bears fans, or others,” wrote Judge Diane Wood, an appointee of President Bill Clinton. “Free exercise of religion enjoys express constitutional protection, and the Governor was entitled to carve out some room for religion, even while he declined to do so for other activities.”

The appeals court also rejected, at least at this stage of the case, arguments from the state GOP that Pritzker was selectively enforcing the political gatherings ban by allowing and even endorsing massive Black Lives Matter street protests, while refusing to allow other political groups to assemble. Wood said the evidence that Pritzker directed some kind of waiver for BLM protests was not strong enough to support a preliminary injunction.

“The fact that the Governor expressed sympathy for the people who were protesting police violence after the deaths of George Floyd and others, and even participated in one protest, does not change the text of the order,” she wrote. “Although we do not rule out the possibility that someone might be able to prove this type of favoritism in the enforcement of an otherwise valid response to the COVID?19 pandemic, the record in this case falls short."

The 7th Circuit ruling also noted that enforcement is being handled at the local level, not by the state. But the decision included a warning of sorts to Pritzker and others to be evenhanded in enforcing the rules.

“Should the Governor begin picking and choosing among those groups ... he would either have to impose the 50?person limit on all of them, or on none of them,” Wood wrote.

Wood also seemed to tweak the Republicans by noting that their suit, which they can continue to pursue in the lower court, could lead to Priztker revoking the religious exception. “When disparate treatment of two groups occurs, the state is free to erase that discrepancy in any way that it wishes,” she wrote.

Wood’s 22-page opinion was joined by Judges Amy Barrett and Amy St. Eve, both appointees of President Donald Trump. Barrett has been repeatedly mentioned as a possible nominee if Trump gets to fill another vacancy on the Supreme Court.

The state GOP filed the suit in June, with chairman Tim Schneider declaring: “Governor Pritzker is ruling Illinois like an unaccountable king where only he gets to decide which violations of his executive order have his blessing."The party quickly struck out in district court and the 7th Circuit in July turned down an emergency request for relief, prompting the party to make an urgent application to the Supreme Court.

But Justice Brett Kavanaugh turned that request down on Independence Day without referring it to his colleagues for action.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2020 07:46PM by Jennifer.

lol

[twitter.com]

Another one ...

[twitter.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2020 01:51AM by Jennifer.

The Stepford judge...