In her testimony to be confirmed the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Judge Amy Coney Barrett said she doesn’t have an “agenda,” and will judge cases based on the “law.”
Well, there are thousands and thousands of “laws” on the books that are unjust or bad laws, and they shouldn’t exist. I want judges who come to the side of the individual, who come to the side of whoever’s life the enforcement of such bad laws is criminally violating.
And of course that applies to unlawful, unconstitutional executive orders such as orders without due process by fascist governors that businesses must shut down, people must stay inside, people may not gather in groups, or that people must wear useless, ineffective masks that cause oxygen deprivation, anxiety and other psychological issues.
So, regarding terrible, unjust “laws” and unconstitutional executive orders issued by fascist governors and mayors, Judge Barrett sided with the other two schnooks in her three-judge panel of the 7th Circus approving Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s unconstitutional lockdown orders and limits on gatherings.
Judge Barrett sides with the government diktats here and opposes liberty, freedom of assembly, and due process. She also seems to go along with the official COVID narrative, a false narrative if there ever was one.
I want Supreme Court “Justices” who side with those who aren’t buying the official COVID narrative that the mainstream media morons have been propagandizing without question, just as we need those who aren’t buying the official 9/11 narrative or any other official narrative. People who understand that government bureaucrats are inherently liars and shouldn’t be believed.
Speaking of useless, ineffective masks, a recent CDC study found that 71% of patients testing positive for COVID-19 had “always” worn the masks, and 14% of the infected wore them “often.” Does Judge Barrett know this? (Probably not. She probably relies on mainstream “news” media for “news” while the real news gets further censored by Fakebook and Twitter. But I digress.
As Chuck Baldwin noted, based on her previous opinions it looks like Judge Barrett will rubber-stamp the COVID police state and forced vaccines, and probably the surveillance state as well, i.e. obediently rubber-stamping the government against our rights and civil liberties. Because gullible Amy is a typical “good citizen” who believes what the government and its bureaucrats tell us, as repeated by the mainstream media morons.
They’re mostly the same, these statists, and their decisions can be predictable. (As I wrote in December of 2018 regarding the swamp creature AG Bill Barr, there will not be any indictments of Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Yates, McCabe, etc., at least I am not holding my breath. And it looks like I was right.)
What we really need is to abolish the “Supreme” Court, i.e. Supreme Bureaucrats, because a society dependent on the word of 9 robed apparatchiks as far as whether people may or may not live their lives freely and unmolested by bureaucrats and their armed goons is a society of “sheeple.”
But, if we must have a U.S. “Supreme” Court, we would be better off if they erred on the side of the individual, and on the side of one’s rights as recognized by the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, and on the side of one’s justly owned property.
Instead, we have apparatchiks who err on the side of the State, and who don’t want to “second guess” the wise judgment of the police, as well as the CIA, NSA and all those other agencies that are not authorized by the U.S. Constitution to begin with.
For example, if a case is a lawsuit by an individual against the CIA for violating the rights of the individual, I want the “Supreme” Court Justice to rule that the CIA was not even authorized by the Constitution in the first place, and that it be abolished. Throw the case out! (Of course, the obedient sheeple who are indoctrinated to believe that the “national security” bureaucrats in Washington have the interests of the people at heart would go nuts if their beloved CIA or NSA were let go.)
And also, in many cases it shouldn’t matter what the details of the case are. For instance, if there is a dispute between an individual and the IRS, it doesn’t matter what specific bureaucratic laws have been disobeyed by the individual serf, or the details of the case. The Justice should recognize the criminality of an agency demanding someone’s funds or earnings in the absence of a voluntary contract, or demanding one’s private, personal information such as one’s employment or compensation matters that are none of the government’s business. If the U.S. Constitution needs to be cited, then it doesn’t even matter if the dubious 16th Amendment authorizes an income theft and an IRS. The unconstitutionality of the IRS racket and its bureaucrats can be cited by the “Justice” by bringing up the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and the Ninth Amendment as well.
And the “War on Drugs” needs to be “overturned” as well. The “Supreme” Court upheld the government police breaking into someone’s home, terrorizing the people there and arresting and abducting them, because the police smelled marijuana and/or heard the toilet flushing. An 8-1 decision with the “liberals” (except Ruth Bader Ginsburg) joining the majority of the authoritarian neanderthals. They’re useless.
All laws and government bureaucracies intruding into the people’s private decisions regarding what they ingest are unjust laws. Who owns your body? If you own your body then you decide and control what you may or may not, or will or will not, put into your own body. Prohibition laws violate your right of self-ownership. This also applies to forced vaccine mandates as well.
But if the government owns “your” body, then of course the government decides for you and controls what you may or may not put into “your” body as well as the government may inflict whatever “medicines” including vaccines (or whatever poisons it chooses to call “medicine”) into you, involuntarily.
What kind of “Supreme” Court Justice would approve of such a society, such a life of serfdom to live? That’s not the kind of “Justice” I would want on a “Supreme” Court.
Replace Judge Amy Coney Barrett as a nominee, who says she “has no agenda,” with someone who does have an agenda, one that protects the individual from the criminal intrusions of the rulers, bureaucrats and armed police.