And this guy is right.

"Last week, the District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Capitol Hill Baptist Church (CHBC) can resume outdoor services despite Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser’s coronavirus restrictions. In his ruling, Judge Trevor McFadden implicitly rebuked Bowser for encouraging one type of gathering — Black Lives Matter protests — while cracking down on religious gatherings."

“No matter how the protests were organized and planned, the District’s (and in particular, Mayor Bowser’s) support for at least some mass gatherings undermines its contention that it has a compelling interest in capping the number of attendees at the Church’s outdoor services,” McFadden wrote.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politi...hurch-services-and-blm-protests-n1060364

IAFT

Waiting for a link depicting Amy Coney Barret having anything to do with this.

For the uninformed:

"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 was authored by Seventh Circuit Judge Diane P. Wood. Circuit judges Amy C. Barrett and Amy J. St. Eve concurred.

Barret is in favor of big government and "lockdowns" that allow BLM and antifags free reign, while churches and legitimate free speech events are suppressed, by law.

I will need a legit link.

Then google it.

I will ask again, name a better candidate for SCOTUS today, in this political climate, this close to election.

A candidate more conservative.
A candidate with less baggage.
A candidate more friendly to the 2'nd.
A candidate easier to get past the Dems.

A candidate that's more conservative, is the DC Judge, as I pointed out.

IDGAS bout baggage, less they've been to Epstein's island, or such.

A Judge that thinks .gov can do whatever it wants, is not going to stop .gov from doing what it wants, with regard to firearms.

IDGAS bout democrats. Ain't nonea em gonna vote for ACB.

Actually ACB and the others in the Illinois decision said pretty much the same thing the District of Columbia judges said.

Freedom of religion has special status and gov't has less ability to restrict them than it does other assemblies.


The Illinois case wasn't about regligious gatherings though. The District of Columbia case was.

So this is an apples to oranges case. The District of Columbia judge may or may not have issued a preliminary injunction if the case had been about politics rather than religion.

I don't know the particulars of either of these cases, but in any case the Litigants have to make their case. The judges rule on what evidence they bring. They do not dig up their own evidence. miles

Loosen your hat fine sir, everything will be ok.

Exactly.

If you have a textualist then sometimes they will rule the way you don't like if the laws are the way you don't like. Civics 101 judges don't make laws.

We need judges who will read the bill of rights for exactly what it says.

YOU nsme such a candidate.

(Hint- not ONE SINGLE judge currently serving meets all FOUR of those criteria any better than ACB.)

It’s so simple even a libtard should understand it. The case is presented, decision made based on evidence, case closed.

If anything, it describes how the left wants the bench to legislate.

That’s not how it works, but a libtard wet dream

Wrong, as always.

The same court of appeals Barrett works at, different judges/case, same issue, said that churches could be closed and BLM protests allowed.

Barrett's case, said that Republican meetings could be closed, churches could be closed, and BLM protests allowed.

IOW, .gov could treat people exercising their 1A rights differently, just because .gov wanted to.

The DC Judge, the one with a brain, said that if a liberal .gov hack was gonna let BLM pull their shat, they got no reason to shut down legitimate exercise of the 1A by normal people.

ACB was wrong. The DC Judge was right.

The Judges rule the way they want to.

You think skagen or [bleep] is gonna change their vote, and rule conservatively, because one guy arguin the case is better at it than the other?

Roberts pulled the O'buckwheatcare crap outta his ass. Nobody had even argued that, and in fact both sides claimed it wasn't a tax.

The judges knew a liberal politician used the power of government ta shut down religion and Republicans, and allowing liberals to run free.

The DC Judge rightfully called bullshit on that.

ACB shrugged her shoulders and said it was OK.

A better explanation. She and a judge appointed by Trump and one appointed by Bush 43 made a good decision based on the train wreck of a suit brought by the Illinois GOP.

https://www.redstate.com/shipwrecke...ng-illinois-lock-down-law-are-dishonest/

Reading the actual opinions will further explain the differences in rulings.

So you're going to condemn her entire judicial history and future based on your interpretation of her ruling in ONE case?

My, aren't we infallible. You should run for Pope.

I don't trust the judgement of women and I sure as fugk don't trust the judgement of a woman that buys kids from Haiti.

Typical answer from a leftard who will not support his bullschhit.

"The judges rule on what evidence they bring. They do not dig up their own evidence."
Judge Sullivan in the Flynn case does. Ask Sydney Powell

She's stronger on the 2nd than anyone.

That very well sums up your stupidity.

Different cases, different issues, totally different arguments. If you'd do more than read propaganda sites you might learn that.

This also wasn't about deciding the case - it was about reviewing a lower court's decision in not granting a permanent injunction against the governor before it went to trial. 3 judgs - 1 from Bush and 2 from Trump ruled that the lower court did not abuse it's discretion.

I am not sure if you are arguing or agreeing with me.

I think we are making the same point.