It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 3 2020 @ 07:44 PM
a reply to: Xtrozero

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 didn't comment because I didn't see it.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Amy Coney Barrett did not vote to support forced vaccinations. She voted to not impose an injunction on forced vaccinations. The reasoning was pretty clear to me: an injunction is usually issued when two things are true. The first truth must be that not issuing an injunction will likely lead to loss of life or irreplacable loss of property. Neither is true in this case. The fact that someone was forced to take a vaccine against their wishes is a wrong that could be compensated, as vaccines are officially considered no risk to life. The second truth is that there must be a high probability of the plaintiff winning the actual case. In this case that point was probably true, but the other was not. Therefore no injunction.

If anything this case actually makes me more satisfied with Judge Barrett. I don't like the outcome, but that's not what is most important. Most important is abiding by the law. Judge Barrett used the Constitution, US and state law, and Supreme Court precedent to make a decision on the action before her. That is proper.


posted on Oct, 3 2020 @ 09:17 PM
a reply to: TheRedneck

Amy Coney Barrett did not vote to support forced vaccinations. She voted to not impose an injunction on forced vaccinations.

Not exactly.

I know its a little bit to read but I'll try to summarize it.

After Democrat Governor Pritzler imposed lockdowns, a Republican state Representative (Darren Bailey) and the Republican Party sued the Governor claiming that the lockdown decree violated their Constitutional rights (speaking broadly).

Judge Michael McHaney agreed with the Republicans and made it absolutely clear as to why:

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.”

The Governor appealed the decision until it reached the Seventh Circuit. Amy Coney Barrett was one of the three judges who ruled on the case.

As we would expect, the judges upheld the Governor's lockdown decree and the precedent that they used was a case called:

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

This Republican challenge to Pritzker didn't have anything to do with forced vaccinations, not yet anyway. But that is the case which the Seventh Circuit used in upholding the Governor's decree or ruling against the Republican Party, however you want to view it.

Now, you agree with ACB's opinion.

Me, as a limited governemnt Constitutionalist, agree with Judge Michael McHaney and its not even a question.

All of these lockdowns violate the Constitution, BOR, its clear to everyone who understands and acknowledges the most basic principles of freedom.

All of this is covered in my OP including the actual quote from their ruling.

What ACB did was render an unconstitutional decision using ANOTHER unconstitutional decision...

The Supreme Court itself is a fraud and has made countless unconstitutional decisions, thats clear to everyone, but their opinion in Jacobson v. Massachusetts was REALLY unconstitutional.

That brings us to a whole other issue, a corrupt system within a corrupt system:

Stare Decisis.

But I dont believe that ACB disagreed with the ruling. She could easily have dissented. She didnt.

And lets be honest, no Judge who really upholds the Constitution is going to make it to the SCOTUS.

A Constitutional SCOTUS would end up striking down most of government as it exists today.

They are nominating someone who they know will uphold martial law type decrees and if needed, forced vaccinations.

This is why she's being supported by BOTH the Left AND the Right.

To put it bluntly: she's a team player.

edit on 3-10-2020 by gladtobehere because: typo

posted on Oct, 4 2020 @ 12:28 AM
a reply to: gladtobehere

You're right; I mixed up the cases.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 was the 1905 Supreme Court case which dealt with vaccinations. Obviously, Amy Coney Barrett was not sitting on any court in 1905, much less the Supreme Court. That case gets thrown in with the case she did sit in on, which was Illinois Republican Party v. J. B. Pritzker, No. 20-2175, because Jacobson v. Massachusetts was a full Supreme Court case. Illinois Republican Party v. J. B. Pritzker was simply a request for injunctive relief.

Whenever a plaintiff files a case before a higher court, they have the right to request injunctive relief, in this case denial of the Executive Order issued by Governor Pritzker that was accused of forbidding religion exercise. The injunctive relief is not the court case! The whole point of injunctive relief is that the case to grant such can be heard very quickly, typically within days or even hours, to protect the plaintiff while the case itself is adjudicated. That can take weeks, months, or occasionally years by comparison.

From the link to Illinois Republican Party v. J. B. Pritzker:

During the coronavirus pandemic, Illinois Governor Pritzker issued executive orders designed to limit the virus’s opportunities to spread, similar to orders in other states. Executive Order 2020‐43 (EO43, June 26, 2020), imposing a 50-person cap on gatherings, states: This Executive Order does not limit the free exercise of religion. To protect the health and safety of faith leaders, staff, congregants, and visitors, religious organizations and houses of worship are encouraged to consult and follow the recommended practices and guidelines from the Illinois Department of Public Health.... the safest practices ... are to provide services online, in a drive‐in format, or outdoors (and consistent with social distancing requirements and guidance regarding wearing face coverings), and to limit indoor services to 10 people. Religious organizations are encouraged to take steps to ensure social distancing, the use of face coverings, and implementation of other public health measures. Emergency and governmental functions enjoy the same exemption.

The Republican Party challenged the “favored” treatment of religion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of injunctive relief. Because the exercise of religion involves more than simple speech, the equivalency urged by the Republicans between political speech and religious exercise is a false one. If there were a problem with the religious exercise carve‐out, the state would be entitled to return to a regime in which even religious gatherings are subject to the mandatory cap.

Nothing in that summary claims to grant any type of judgement on the case itself, only on the issue of injunctive relief. The need for an injunction is, as I stated already, nonexistent. If the plaintiff wins their case, the right to gather for religious purposes will simply be enforced. The only error I made was the type of relief that was being requested.

The full text of the ruling is here; you can find more detailed information about the reasoning that led back to Jacobson v. Massachusetts on pages 7 and 8. Essentially, Jacobson v. Massachusetts did not agree with the Republican Party that the Executive Order violated the 14th Amendment. The question of violation of the 1st Amendment was specifically not raised, as explained, and therefore was not under consideration from the Court. While in a full court case judges are free to consider all Constitutional restrictions, the same is not true for a hearing on an injunction. The Republicans did not present an argument based on the 1st Amendment, therefore the judges were unable to rule on the applicability of the 1st Amendment.

In short, blame the Republican Party. They chose a losing argument. Amy Coney Barrett did her job.


posted on Oct, 4 2020 @ 04:05 AM
a reply to: TheRedneck

Thats not correct. I spoke to this in my OP but I'll repeat it.

The Republican Party wasnt really making an "argument". They were simply pointing out the fact that we as individuals are born with certain rights.

And in the United States, the law (ie the Constitution), protects those rights from government infringement.

Judge Michael McHaney's agreed because theres no other way for someone to view it:

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.”

But again, these types of judges will never make it to the SCOTUS.

I included all this info in my OP with a link to the Seventh Circuit's ruling, but I'll repeat it here:

In his executive order, Pritzker exempted religious services.

More specifically, 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.

Obviously, this is insane.

Their ruling literally contradicted itself but thats almost always the case when judges knowingly violate the Constitution, which is often.

This was the excuse that they expected the American people to take seriously while pointing to Jacobson v. Massachusetts as further justification for refusing to grant an injunction against EO 43 or essentially upholding the Governor's lockdown decree.

You support her and her decision based on your understanding of the Constitution and how our government and the courts work.

I'm saying that she's 100% in the wrong. The EO should have been struck down, without question.

But you and I both know thats not how things really work.

Theres an agenda here and the courts are expected to do their part.

They have to establish this idea, despite its blatant unconstitutionality and immoralality, that the government can "legally" impose martial law on the people.

And if they need to, forcibly vaccinate the population. If this were a book, I'd say it was some pretty obvious foreshadowing.

Of-course I hope I'm wrong about all this but I dont think I am.

I think in the coming years, there are going to be more "events" (a collapse of the economy would be my guess), during which government will impose lockdowns and other forms of martial law.

And the SCOTUS will uphold all of it which is exactly what theyre supposed to do.

posted on Oct, 4 2020 @ 05:19 AM
a reply to: gladtobehere

The Republican Party wasnt really making an "argument".

That is probably why they lost the injunction.

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.

No, they did not. They ruled on an injunction.

I have given you the decisions from You are choosing to replace those with your own ideals of how the legal system should work in your ideal world. Vanity aside, that is simply not an argument. You, sir, do not define the US legal system.


posted on Oct, 4 2020 @ 02:53 PM
Here is my thoughts on this. First off the manner in which to quarantine was implemented shows this was not serious. If it was a true quarantine there would be no exceptions. A real quarantine would be a total killing of our rights by it's nature. That and if how they were done back in the days of long ago were done today we would have houses with their inhabitants sealed in and a notice that they were in quarantine. Have we seen that? Second everyone seems to forget that even here in the US with our fixation on individual rights, we forget that individual rights get trumped by the needs of the many. Kind of like how the police do not protect the individual but society as a whole. Individuals do not matter it is the needs of the many as decided by those in charge! Not like this is first time either by legislation or by judicial fiat we have had something forced on us.

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in