Amy Coney Barrett Makes Historic Ruling, Dems Melt Down


Image credit to Wiki Media. Image modified from original.

On Thursday, the United States Supreme Court ruled against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in favor of religious freedom, after Cuomo went after religious groups with extreme restrictions.


Enter your email below:

One of the five justices who voted against Cuomo’s restrictions was Supreme Court Justice, Amy Coney Barrett. This sent liberals on Twitter on meltdown as they gave her the new nickname, “Amy Covid Barrett.”

“I promise I will call her Amy Covid Barrett for the rest of her unqualified zealot hack judge life,” wrote screenwriter Randi Mayem Singer.

“I want to laugh that Amy Covid Barrett is trending but can’t stop thinking of the thousands and thousands of more deaths she just handed us,” said Twitter user Q. Allan Brocka.

The ironic thing is, none of these leftists seemed to care about the coronavirus when the Democrats were rushing to the streets to celebrate Joe Biden’s alleged victory.

In his dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote: “I would grant the Church’s requested temporary injunction because California’s latest safety guidelines discriminate against places of worship and in favor of comparable secular businesses. Such discrimination violates the First Amendment.  In response to the COVID–19 health crisis, California has now limited attendance at religious worship services to 25% of building capacity or 100 attendees, whichever is lower. The basic constitutional problem is that comparable secular businesses are not subject to a 25% occupancy cap, including factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries.”

He continued, “In my view, California’s discrimination against religious worship services contravenes the Constitution. … What California needs is a compelling justification for distinguishing between (i) religious worship services and (ii) the litany of other secular businesses that are not subject to an occupancy cap. California has not shown such a justification.”

View original Post


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.