Thread by @pnjaban

1/ I've seen some conservative huffing and puffing about Judge Barrett being a "statist" because she refused to enjoin Illinois' coronavirus restrictions. So I thought I would actually read the Sept. 2 opinion in Illinois Republican Party v. Pritzker, which she joined (3-0).../

2/ and the case is about whether, in the name of the 1st Amendment, the Illinois GOP was entitled to the same exemption from the 50-person gathering cap that houses of worship enjoy under Pritzker's orders, which merely "urge" religions institutions to adopt now-familiar limits/

3/ but everyone else has to follow the 50-person cap. By attacking the lack of a binding limit for houses of worship the party hoped to expand its ability to gather, but the three-judge panel including Judge Barrett rejected their reasoning, as had Justice Kavanaugh in declining/

4/ to grant the party an injunction pending appeal of the merits review of the denial of preliminary injunction by the district court. Upon expedited merits review, the 7th Circuit let stand different & better treatment for houses of worship than for political parties.

5/ in conclusion, one might disagree with the conclusion of the panel & Justice Kavanaugh's refusing to provide the same rights to the Illinois GOP as to worshippers at a church, synagogue, mosque, gurdwara, temple, but one can hardly say that is a statist position. It honors/

6/ the unique protections afforded to religion in our constitution & it protects that position from being downgraded to the same level as partisan political discourse. Indeed, the idea that politics & religion should be on equal footing is more liberal than conservative. My $.02.

7/ here's a link, read it for yourself and see whether "Judge Barrett is a coronavirus-restriction-promoting-statist!" is a fair summary of Judge Wood's opinion, which she joined. politico.com/f/?id=00000174…