TRUMP PICK ACB RULED ENDLESS LOCKDOWNS & FORCED VACS CONSTITUTIONAL

Sept. 28, 2020

Rob Lauer Political Reporter

Less than a month ago, Pres. Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court, Judge Amy Barrett, sided with Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker’s lock downs, which forbid the State GOP from holding a rally, but allowed mass BLM protests.

The Illinois Republican Party sued Gov. J.B. Pritzker seeking an injunction against his lock down which allowed churches and mass BLM protests but forbid the GOP from hold meetings and rallies with more than 50 people.

The federal appeals court, which Judge Barrett sits on, rejected the State GOP’s arguments that political activities are Constitutionally protected as much as churches, which Gov. Pritzker carved out an except for the 50 in person limit. In addition, the GOP argued that the Democrat Governor played political favorites when he gave mass BLM protesters a pass on his 50 in person limits.

But Judge Barrett joined the court in “the opinion, released Thursday by the Chicago-based 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which 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.”

Barrett’s decision included the following written order relying on the Jacobson decision mandating vaccines. 

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 re‐
quirements that the City of Cambridge had put in place in re‐
sponse 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 oth‐
erwise 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 mem‐
bers of the medical profession … and in most civilized na‐
tions.” 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 se‐
cured by the Federal Constitution.” Id. at 38.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), more than 100 year old decision, not law, not science; forced a local man to get vaccinated for polio against his will. BTW back in 1905, Jim Crow laws were legal. Locking up a mentally ill person was legal. Segregation was legal along with a host of other scourges rejected by our generation. We seek a high Court Appointee who will reverse these horrid decisions, not honor them.

So this great constitutional scholar Judge Barrett supports lock-down mandates and government forced vaccines. There is nothing written in stone saying we must support this mistaken nominee who threatens our freedom and sides with Government’s most extreme power grabs. The law and the Constitution must prevail over past court decisions that violate basic rights like Jacobson. After this same court ruled run away free slaves had to be returned to southern slave masters in the 1800’s. Republicans seek judges that will overrule past liberal court decisions that violate our principles of law and order. Barrett wants to honor them by violating more people’s rights.

The Senate can and should vote no in the next 2 weeks and start over with a better choice. Perhaps next time we can remove the gender requirement from the nominee and just pick the best person for the job.

We must put aside the political partisanship and we must defend our constitutional against attacks from all quarters. We cannot support this nominee just because Pres. Trump was pressured by Washington insiders and think tanks to back her. If you like the lock downs and arbitrary CV19 rules, if you support government mandated vaccines then you will love Judge Amy Barrett. The fact is Amy Barrett is more aligned with John Roberts than Judge Scalia.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/illinois-coronavirus-lockdown-court-challenge-408747