Amy Coney Barrett upheld lockdowns relying on Jacobson v. Massachusetts - forced vaccinations.

Backstory:

On March 20th, the Governor of Illinois, J. B. Pritzker (Democrat), issued a stay at home order.

He would go on to expand that order under Illinois EO 43:

EXECUTIVE ORDER 2020-43.


Illinois state Representative, Darren Bailey (Republican) sued the Governor claiming that his Constitutionally protected rights were being violated.


Judge Michael McHaney ruled in favor of Bailey and in the process, made his opinion absolutely clear:

Judge puts Pritzker’s ‘unconstitutional’ executive order in legal limbo.

Judge McHaney: “Every second this Executive Order is in existence, it is in violation of the Constitution and shreds the Bill of Rights.”

Judge McHaney: “The issue before me now is whether the Governor can ignore the Illinois and U.S. Constitutions for more than thirty days. This court rules that the answer to the question is a resounding ‘No.'

The Governor appealed this decision until it reached the Seventh Circuit.

Amy Coney Barrett, serving on the Seventh Circuit, would rule on this case, along with another Trump appointee, Amy J. St. Eve, and one Clinton Appointee, Diane Wood.


In his executive order, Pritzker exempted religious services.

Bailey claimed that while freedom of religion is a Constitutionally protected right, its not the only right which is protected under the First Amendment and therefore Pritzker's EO is unconstitutional.

Amy Coney Barrett and the Seventh Circuit disagreed.

They ruled unanimously that while a religious exemption is lawful, other rights were not guaranteed under the First and can be infringed: the right to peaceably assemble whether for political gatherings or any other reason, were not protected.

In addition, they refused to grant an injunction against EO 43.


A federal appeals court rejects Illinois GOP's challenge to governor's lockdown order.

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.

Whats more disturbing, is the case precedent which they used to justify their ruling.

Here is the 22 page decision from the Seventh Circuit and a quote from page 3:

Illinois Republican Party v. J. B. Pritzker, No. 20-2175 (7th Cir. 2020)

The Illinois Republican Party and some of its affiliates (“the Republicans”) believe that the accommodation for free exercise contained in the executive order violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

In this action, they seek a permanent injunction against EO43.

In so doing, they assume that such an injunction would permit them, too, to congregate in groups larger than 50, rather than reinstate the stricter ban for religion that some of the Governor’s earlier executive orders included, though that is far from assured.

Relying principally on Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), the district court denied the Republicans’ request for preliminary injunctive relief against EO43.

But what is Jacobson v. Massachusetts?

Jacobson v. Massachusetts

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws.

The Court's decision articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state.

So, lets take a step back and put this into perspective.

Here we have a Supreme Court nominee who upheld a blatantly unconstitutional lockdown decree, in obvious violation of the Constitution.

And she did it relying on a previous Supreme Court decision which permits the State to forcibly inoculate the public...


Are we supposed to believe that all of this is a coincidence?

That we have a Judge who is willing to violate the Constitution in the middle of a plandemic in which there are rumblings of forced vaccinations...

Dershowitz says forced coronavirus vaccination could happen: 'Police power of the state is very considerable'.

This is the kind of stuff that actually puts some fear into me.

Rioting, looting, blowhards, etc doesn't really phase me. Forced vaccinations scare the sh*t out of me.

Should be interesting to see how this thread turns out.

a reply to: Drucifer

So your # being burned to the ground doesn't phase you? hmm Rioting through the streets doesn't phase you? hmmm ok then.. carry on....

a reply to: Drucifer

Ohhh so as long as it's someone elses # being burnt to the ground it doesn't phase you... gotcha

a reply to: Drucifer

I couldnt agree more.

We have a right to protect ourselves against trouble makers.

But whos really prepared to take on the State and its enforcers...

In the middle of this plandemic, our rights have been, as Judge Michael McHaney (referenced above) put it, "shredded".

Judge McHaney:

Does the Governor have the right to shred the Constitution for longer than 30 days? That’s the issue, isn’t it?

And now we have a SCOTUS nominee who not only upheld an unconstitutional lockdown decree but justified it by pointing to a previous SCOTUS ruling which allows the State to force individuals to be vaccinated.

At a time when we are being conditioned to accept an experimental vaccine...

Truth really is stranger than fiction.

The Dystopic future is absolutely here.

Thanks for posting this. I know very little about her and this worries me.
Forced vaccinations would be a deal breaker. I hope this is covered thoroughly during the confirmation hearing.

I need to hear it from HER mouth, I trust nothing else these days.

a reply to: stosh64

Unfortunately they lie. :-(

But yah, everyone seems to be supporting her which is usually a bad sign.

When both the Rs and Ds come out against someone, it usually means theyre a decent person.

No one is talking about this...

a reply to: gladtobehere

Hahaha I called it.

I told all of you that none of you knew the Truth about this wicked witch.

I know by instinct because damn near every judge in this country is a tyrannical totalitarian scumbag. It's a rule of thumb these are lying ass lawyers.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: stosh64

Unfortunately they lie. :-(

But yah, everyone seems to be supporting her which is usually a bad sign.

When both the Rs and Ds come out against someone, it usually means theyre a decent person.

No one is talking about this...

Thank you for bringing this to us.

This is some frightening conspiracy becomes reality stuff.

I told you guys America was dead. This is the type of thing I was referencing.

The Republicans are actually being played.
TPTB think everyone is a huge idiot.
Maybe we are...

Oh well, get in line get your shots and stop thinking.

Tyrants can hide under any clothing.

Any political party, religion, philosophy etc - can be used to sneak in totalitarianism.

Jesus preached freedom but the church enforced an iron will by the blade for centuries.

Even some charity like the Red Cross is used as a guise for power hungry psychos to promote their ambitions at the detriment of whoever, they don't care its all about them their family their agenda and you're all slaves in their eyes.

Now you MUST take this Shot! It's totally constitutional and you have NO RIGHT TO YOUR BODIES SLAVES!!!

Dont let this thread die dammit.

This is more important than the debate.

It proves the Republicans are a puppet in the NWO conspiracy that controls the Dems too.

a reply to: gladtobehere

While I support Trump's choice and her professional abilities, this is a disturbing precedent that needs to be taken into account if she gets elected. Not that I don't want her, but maybe it's time to dig deeper into her entire career in order to know her well. We don't need smarties that trample on the Constitution. Great find.

Star and flag.

Very interesting, scary and eye-opening topic OP. Thank you for putting this together and sharing. Very well done.

I think the comment about how both sides NOT waging war against her is concerning proves a valid point. I'd love to know which members (all) have stock in Pfizer etc and plan to gain from this vaccine. Do not bite the hand that feeds you.

When this does come to fruition (vaccs), it will be interesting to see the reaction by us citizens. Will people take to the streets to protest or will there be a concerted effort via the media, similar to Covid, to "shame" those who aren't on board with their directives.

I'm not a gun owner currently (not against them, just never bought one) but I plan on making a purchase here sometime soon

a reply to: TXRabbit

Thanks for the kind words.

I know its a lot but thanks for actually taking the time to read through it.

a reply to: gladtobehere
This should get her overwhelming support from authoritarian Democrats!

originally posted by: MarlbBlack
a reply to: Drucifer

So your # being burned to the ground doesn't phase you? hmm Rioting through the streets doesn't phase you? hmmm ok then.. carry on....

No, it doesn’t phase me because it’s not happening here. In fact, the protesters stopped the looters from wreaking havoc in Miami when it started to present itself. They literally stood between the stores and the looters and told them to f*ck off. We had several protests in the Ft. Lauderdale/Miami areas and the only time they got out of hand is after a cop pushed a woman over who was already kneeling on the ground. It was all over and done within about 10 minutes because the police are allowed to do their jobs here. That was a week after Floyd died, there have been protests, but nothing close to resembling a riot or looting.

I’m not going to sit in my house, 4,000 miles away from where it’s happening, and panic over something that does not deem itself to be a threat to me.

originally posted by: MarlbBlack
a reply to: Drucifer

Ohhh so as long as it's someone elses # being burnt to the ground it doesn't phase you... gotcha

I generally don’t respond to those who pull assumptions out of their asses and are creating some kind of debate where there isn’t one, but I’ll play today. I’ve said my piece on here about the riots and looting plenty. I think they should have been shut down the second it was started. Can I do a damn thing about it? Nope. Not my job. I didn’t sign up to protect people 4,000 miles away from me. I didn’t even sign up to do it in my own city. That said, if I saw it happening in my neighborhood, I would certainly do what I could to help my neighbors. As I stated previously, the police are allowed to do their jobs. Even with a Democrat mayor in Ft. Lauderdale AND Miami.

Does it bother me? To the degree that I feel for the people it happens to, of course. I’m not heartless. Do I think it’s an ass-backwards way of getting a point across? Of course. I don’t support it a single bit. But sitting in South Florida and getting worked up over it with ZERO way to do anything about it will do me absolutely no good. I didn’t vote for their mayors and I’m not going to move there so I can vote them out. Am I going to pack up all my guns and drive up there to stop them? Absolutely not. Their mayors need to do their f*cking jobs. I have zero interest in causing harm to anyone unless my life, or my wife’s, life is in immediate danger. I chose to live in an area where I feel the police can respond appropriately to issues they need to. I voted for a sheriff who I believe can do the job he is given.

All that said, it would do you good to not pull conclusions out of your ass. There’s a MAJOR difference between people willingly allowing or contributing to looting and rioting and the federal government mandating a vaccine. If you can’t understand that, I don’t know what to tell ya.

Wow, I thought for sure this post would get a lot more attention on here.

The crickets are alarming, to say the least.

I know this doesn’t align itself with Trump picking the best person for the job, but that shouldn’t be a reason to ignore it people.

originally posted by: Drucifer
Wow, I thought for sure this post would get a lot more attention on here.

The crickets are alarming, to say the least.

I know this doesn’t align itself with Trump picking the best person for the job, but that shouldn’t be a reason to ignore it people.

WEEee love to read endless pages of legal briefings...

The Governor order EXECUTIVE ORDER 2020-43b states that gatherings of over 50 is not permitted. So what is a gathering? Hard to suggest as people randomly come and go to count as a gathering...They saw that with BLM...So it seems they are not acting on random gatherings as they didn't with BLM, so is the intensions more along the line of gatherings of planned events? Church would be a planned event as example, a concert would be one too. Protesting is not typically a planned event, but can planned through the police with a permit that is given to make sure safety requirements are met like shutting down streets, parks, provide more cops etc...

So it seems unplanned events such as BLM and maybe freedom of speech gatherings would be hard to enforce the 50, but for planned events it would be easy as it could be part of the permit for the gathering based on safety.

I see that all three judges agreed, so I'm not a lawyer but usually legal precedence comes into play and it did here, and looks why they all agreed. We also need to understand that States have all the power within their State to do many things, so I'm not sure if their ruling was bad or out of context, but I'll assume it wasn't. If the Governor allows BLM, but jackboots all others that is outside of his EO as he is not enforcing it correctly and not part of the ruling.

Lastly I find the whole "forced coronavirus vaccination could happen" is a stretch to suggest she is bad as 11 states has it in place already, so yes at the state level it could happen, but with her in the SC they would leave that at the state level. Also just because they used that as legal precedence doesn't also mean she agrees with it personally...They will all use Row vs Wade as a legal precedence while most legal scholars see it as a very poor decision by the SC, so this basically shows she would abide with legal precedence over personal feelings... And isn't that a good thing??

To end this, most did not comment on this as there really wasn't a point to comment on other than to suggest she is a bad pick with personal opinion driving that idea, so I need to ask what is the main point of the OP?

a reply to: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Xtrozero

To end this, most did not comment on this as there really wasn't a point to comment on other than to suggest she is a bad pick with personal opinion driving that idea, so I need to ask what is the main point of the OP?

I tried to communicate it in as simple of a way as I possibly could with the assumption that its not obvious.

Theres no personal opinion here.

She upheld a blatantly unconstitutional lockdown decree and used another unconstitutional Supreme Fraud opinion to justify it.

The point of this thread cant get any more straightforward than this.

Regardless of how clear things are, some people are simply not meant to see.

originally posted by: gladtobehere

She upheld a blatantly unconstitutional lockdown decree and used another unconstitutional Supreme Fraud opinion to justify it.

You wanted someone to opine and I did, and even though I gave you a good post of a lot of information all you got in your bag was to comment on my last sentence ignoring everything I wrote... This tells me you are like so many of your lib buddies that you do not really want a discourse and you just want to RREEEee away...well go ahead and get it out of your system as she will be selected 100%.

I have already pointed out in my other post that it was well within the Constitutional rights of the State's Constitution and even has Legal Precedence which they used.

Just because you say something doesn't make it factual. ALL three judges agreed too, so once again you are pissing in the wind with this. How about her 1000s of other cases and 1000s of written judicial opinions that everyone who are actually lawyers/judges say she is one of the most brilliant of our times.

You are trying to prove some point that just isn't there....