He chose Barrett – IOTW Report

He chose Barrett

I know you’re wondering…

Barrett Did Not Affirm the Illinois Lockdown Order.

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. –

more at the link above.

h/t Commenter at Conservative Treehouse.

29 Comments on He chose Barrett

  1. This is why I hate lawyers. If even one small, minuscule piece doesn’t fit a law, then it is legal.
    I do not blame the Judge for this, though I do not like her ruling, I blame the system. I still don’t have a better system, especially one that might actually get implemented. Except maybe: Agree with me for everything. Go ahead. Any judge is welcome to call me up and I will give them my opinion. Which is one of the reasons I will never be a judge. That, and not being a lawyer, despite not needing to be a lawyer to be nominated as a judge (that still does confuse me, even though it might even things out)

  2. Sadly there are a lot of so called republicans that privately and publicly are seething over Trump getting this nomination and I would not doubt some of them, particularly the losers on The Integrity Project, provide misinformation to thwart support.

    12
  3. If she was well thought of by Scalia that’ll do it for me.
    You’d have to study every decision she’s made to know everything you’d like but that’s unreasonable.
    We’re all nervous about judges after so many disappointments but we just have to hope she’ll not be another letdown.

    26
  4. It’ll be interesting to see how the bolshies attack her; will it get as ugly as the Kavanaugh confirmation? I pray she’ll have the ability to stand fast against the coming ess storm.

    12
  5. This is a great quote from her. ““We agreed to live by the Constitution until it’s lawfully changed,” she said at a Hillsdale College event in 2019. “And judges can’t change it. That’s not Democratic.”

    9
  6. Consider this: The year two thousand and twenty and we’re swimming in a veritable sea of 0s and 1s of data; an age of facts, information, and opinion like none before it, and we may never know the truth of any given situation.

    God help us.

    13
  7. Ironically, Trump picked the tougher fight. Lagoa would have brought more bipartisan support, which could backfire with Republicans before the election.

    I think Trump did the right thing. We need to close the deal soonest.

    7
  8. It would be refreshing to find a judge who can read.
    The Supremes really only have one job: does THIS law conform with the Constitution? Yes or No. No bullshit, No interpretation, No establishment of a new “rule” to substitute for THAT failed law.
    Pretty fuckin simple.

    But the bench seems to attract maggots who are angry that THEY aren’t God.

    Law is a shadow of Justice (somebody once said) – and we have to make the best of it.

    izlamo delenda est …

Comments are closed.