Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What you may not know Amy Barett was FOR the lockdowns in Illinois. she is a fake a fraud. anyone that is for a lockdown is scum. These lockdowns like A G Barr said "These lockdowns are the biggest violation of civil liberties other then slavery."
Even Trump was for lockdowns before he was against them, as were pretty much all Republican governors. They didn't rave against them until they realized it was a popular thing to do.
If Barrett was for lockdowns, and still is, it only means she is not easily swayed by public opinion. It makes her look better, not worse.
Even Trump was for lockdowns before he was against them, as were pretty much all Republican governors. They didn't rave against them until they realized it was a popular thing to do.
If Barrett was for lockdowns, and still is, it only means she is not easily swayed by public opinion. It makes her look better, not worse.
it might make her look better with people on the left but no true conservative would find that she is pro lockdown a positive view. lockdowns are unconstitutional. we where lied to by corrupt science people that is why at first trump was for the lockdowns for a short period of time. lockdowns are unconstitutional even if there really was a bad disease out there.
it might make her look better with people on the left but no true conservative would find that she is pro lockdown a positive view. lockdowns are unconstitutional. we where lied to by corrupt science people that is why at first trump was for the lockdowns for a short period of time. lockdowns are unconstitutional even if there really was a bad disease out there.
Of course lock downs are unconstitutional but we were all trying to do our best during unprecedented times. I don't think anyone can be blamed for trying one way or another and that includes Trump no matter what the Democrats tell us.
There is nothing wrong with Amy Barrett. Real people, the best people are flexible in their views and thoughts so Amy being for a lock down which at the time seemed the best way to protect people from the virus.
it might make her look better with people on the left but no true conservative would find that she is pro lockdown a positive view. lockdowns are unconstitutional. we where lied to by corrupt science people that is why at first trump was for the lockdowns for a short period of time. lockdowns are unconstitutional even if there really was a bad disease out there.
That is your personal opinion, not a fact. It is not a "true conservative" thing to rave against common sense measures. If it was, then we don't seem to have ANY true conservative politicians in the nation, because every State which has high number of infections had lock downs, and that included red, blue and purple States. Heck, Miami still has curfews and we have a Republican governor and the mayor of Miami and Dade county are all Republicans.
The government has a Constitutional duty to promote and provide for general welfare of the nation, and taking common sense measures to protect people from a pandemic falls in that category. This is probably why Barrett didn't have a problem with it.
This virus has killed 200 000 Americans, and even to this day Trump says it would have killed millions had measures not been taken. But of course he is trying to have it both ways (oppose and support the measures, whichever tickles the ears of his loyalists).
The only people who have a problem with it, are those who feel compelled to repeat everything Trump says.
Of course lock downs are unconstitutional but we were all trying to do our best during unprecedented times. I don't think anyone can be blamed for trying one way or another and that includes Trump no matter what the Democrats tell us.
There is nothing wrong with Amy Barrett. Real people, the best people are flexible in their views and thoughts so Amy being for a lock down which at the time seemed the best way to protect people from the virus.
Good Conservatives know this.
I believe when she ruled on Illinois lockdowns it was not too long ago maybe 20 days ago. so this was not a ruling that came months before.
the constitution is the constitution a good judge would not be flexible. for instance Anthony Scalia was a good judge.
She wasn't for the lockdowns. Nowhere in the text of the 7th Circuit's decision on ILLINOIS REPUBLICAN PARTY v PRITZKER does Amy Coney Barrett express support or opposition of covid lockdowns.
The 7th Circuit applied the US Constitution, written law and judicial precedents aplenty to uphold the governor of Illinois carving out an exemption to the "gathering of more than 50 people" rule for (word for word in that exemption instruction, btw) the "free exercise of religion."
The 7th Circuit never takes a personal or subjective position on the lockdowns themselves, because the case brought by the Illinois GOP doesn't attack the lockdowns in and of themselves. The Illinois GOP was challenging if there is an exception to the lockdown rules for one part of the 1st Amendment (free exercise of religion) then there must be no limit on any gathering where another part of the 1st Amendment (free speech) is protected. The only place they address the validity of lockdowns generally is on page 6-7 of the written decision:
Quote:
The next question relates to the overall validity of EO43 and orders like it, which have been issued in the midst of a general pandemic. As we noted in Elim, the Supreme Court addressed this type of measure more than a century ago, in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). The district court appropriately looked to Jacobson for guidance, and so do we. The question the Court faced there concerned vaccination requirements that the City of Cambridge had put in place in response to a smallpox epidemic. The law made an exception for children who had a physician’s certificate stating that they were “unfit subjects for vaccination,” id. at 12, but it was otherwise comprehensive. Faced with a lawsuit by a man who did not wish to be vaccinated, and who contended that the City’s requirement violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to liberty, the Court ruled for the City. In so doing, it held that it was appropriate to defer to the City’s assessment of the value of vaccinations—an assessment, it noted, that was shared “by the mass of the people, as well as by most members of the medical profession … and in most civilized nations.” Id. at 34. It thus held that “[t]he safety and the health of the people of Massachusetts are, in the first instance, for that commonwealth to guard and protect,” and that it “[did] not perceive that this legislation has invaded any right secured by the Federal Constitution.” Id. at 38.
At least at this stage of the pandemic, Jacobson takes off the table any general challenge to EO43 based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of liberty. Like the order designed to combat the smallpox epidemic, EO43 is an order designed to address a serious public‐health crisis. At this stage in the present litigation, no one is alleging that the Governor lacks the power to issue such orders as a matter of state law. Instead, our case presents a more granular challenge to the Governor’s action—one that focuses on his decision to subject the exercise of religion only to recommended measures, rather than mandatory ones. We must decide whether that distinction is permissible.
(emphasis mine, italics are original)
Thus, according to established precedent and the law as written, the lockdowns themselves are seen as valid. The question the 7th Circuit ruled on wasn't "can/should we have lockdowns" but whether a law/reg/directive from government make an exception without invalidating the law/reg/directive entirely? In this case, the directive is lockdown, the exception is that more than 50 people can gather ONLY IF the gathering is for the free exercise of religion, and the plaintiff argued the exception invalidates the directive, and the 7th Circuit decided that no, it does not.
It further cautioned the plaintiff that even if they decided that the governor had to remove the exception for religious practice, the governor was absolutely within their purview to "balance down" and make the entire lockdown more restrictive, where the GOP had the misguided belief the governor could only "balance up" and just allow any gathering of any size.
Nowhere, however, did Judge Barrett jump into the spotlight to give her support to lockdowns. The court applied the law as written and quite a few established court decisions and precedents to arrive at what looks like the correct decision.
That is your personal opinion, not a fact. It is not a "true conservative" thing to rave against common sense measures. If it was, then we don't seem to have ANY true conservative politicians in the nation, because every State which has high number of infections had lock downs, and that included red, blue and purple States. Heck, Miami still has curfews and we have a Republican governor and the mayor of Miami and Dade county are all Republicans.
The government has a Constitutional duty to promote and provide for general welfare of the nation, and taking common sense measures to protect people from a pandemic falls in that category. This is probably why Barrett didn't have a problem with it.
This virus has killed 200 000 Americans, and even to this day Trump says it would have killed millions had measures not been taken. But of course he is trying to have it both ways (oppose and support the measures, whichever tickles the ears of his loyalists).
The only people who have a problem with it, are those who feel compelled to repeat everything Trump says.
there is nowhere in the constitution where it says the government must protect the people from a pandemic. if you are afraid stay home. that is how we are losing our freedom from the phrase " the common good" you can use that term to take away any god given right we have. people that know what is going on will not fall for it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
