Even if Amy Barrett is confirmed to SCOTUS, she’s still a statist who promotes forced vaccinations and indefinite lockdowns

Conservatives are clamoring online, hoping that President Trump nominates Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be the next Supreme Court Justice of the United States. As conservatives rush to nominate a Supreme Court Justice before the 2020 election, they may get the opposite of what they really want. Republicans are on the verge of electing one of the most egregious authoritarians, a woman who has a track record of defending the power of the state over the freedom of the individual.

Conservative darling Amy Barrett is for indefinite lock downs, forced vaccination

In order to get approval from conservatives, a Supreme Court candidate merely has to espouse disdain for one case, Roe vs Wade. This was the infamous ruling that led to modern day infanticide – unchecked, taxpayer funded abortions that conscript medical professionals to terminate human life from the womb.

While this case is important, what about all the other court opinions that have led to human abuses? In 2020, Judge Barret sided on behalf of J.B. Pritzker, Governor of Illinois — giving him supreme authority to lock down the state for as long as he pleases. Judge Barrett gave in to the authoritarian left by hiding behind a 1905 ruling in Jacobsen v. Massachusetts. This ruling gave local Massachusetts authorities free reign to vaccinate and re-vaccinate every adult in their jurisdiction and fine those who did not comply.

Jacobsen v. Massachusetts (1905): “The board of health of a city or town if, in its opinion, it is necessary for the public health or safety shall require and enforce the vaccination and re-vaccination of all the inhabitants thereof and shall provide them with the means of free vaccination. Whoever, being over twenty-one years of age and not under guardianship, refuses or neglects to comply with such requirement shall forfeit five dollars.”

Barrett is prone to side with the state in all matters of public health hysteria, disregarding individual liberty, medical privacy, informed consent and human rights. She concurred with the majority in Illinois Republican Party et al. v. J.B. Pritzker, Governor of Illinois and agreed to hold down the people of Illinois through indefinite, illegal lockdowns and economic restrictions. If nominated, Barret would continue to allow Democrats to rip up the Constitution under the guise of safety and protecting the “greater good.” If nominated, Barrett would ultimately rule in favor of compulsory vaccination, giving government the power to force experimental covid-19 injections, faulty flu vaccines, and all other pharmaceutical products that are promoted as one-size-fits-all “public health” solutions.

Judge Barrett would allow governors to restrict religious freedom

Furthermore, it seems that Barrett would restrict religious liberty. In Illinois Republican Party et al. v. J.B. Pritzker, Governor of Illinois, she concurred that the governor “was not compelled to make a special dispensation for religious activities.” She agreed that the First Amendment Free Speech Clause did not prevent him from controlling religious exercise. “As in the cases reconciling the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, all that the Governor did was to limit to a certain degree the burden on religious exercise that [the governor’s executive order] imposed.”

Pennsylvania District Judge William S. Stickman refuses to hide behind the fragile precedent that continues to mock the original intent of the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution. Judge Stickman stood against the human rights abuses that followed the 1905 Jacobsen v. Massachusetts compulsory vaccination ruling. He ruled against Pennsylvania’s illegal lock down in 2020 and wrote, “Jacobson was decided over a century ago. Since that time, there has been substantial development of federal constitutional law in the area of civil liberties… That century of development has seen the creation of tiered levels of scrutiny for constitutional claims. They did not exist when Jacobson was decided. […]”

Just because Barrett worked as clerk for former Justice Antonin Scalia, does not automatically make her an honorable originalist who can interpret the law by following the Constitution. Her track record, especially during 2020, proves the opposite to be true.

Watch Robert F. Kennedy Jr. debate Alan Dershowitz on  Jacobsen v. Massachusetts (1905), in regard to vaccine safety, informed consent and human rights.

Sources include:

BigLeaguePolitics.com

Supreme.Justia.com

Brighteon.com