Videos by OutKick
Nothing makes major media outlets angrier than correctly identifying the horrifying overreach of COVID lockdowns and mandates.
The latest example is Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. He wrote an opinion in a recent case identifying COVID policies as an extreme intrusion on civil liberties in America.
When describing the case, focused around Title 42 pandemic regulations on immigration at the Southern border, Gorsuch went off on the government’s mistakes during the pandemic.
“The history of this case illustrates the disruption we have experienced over the last three years in how our laws are made and our freedoms observed,” Gorsuch explained. “Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country.”
According to Times opinion writer Jamelle Bouie, this correct interpretation “inadvertently reveal(s) just how skewed” Gorsuch’s perception is.
“Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale,” Gorsuch wrote, “governors and local leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain in their homes.” Schools and businesses “threatened violators not just with civil penalties but with criminal sanctions, too.”
READ: NEW STUDY SHOWS COVID POSES EXCEPTIONALLY LOW RISKS TO KIDS, FURTHER DISCREDITING SCHOOL CLOSURES
To Bouie, these are minor concerns to be dismissed, because his political ideology agreed with these restrictions.
COVID Policies Were Historic Disruptions Of Civil Rights
To “disprove” Gorsuch’s argument, Bouie brings up McCarthyism and “mass surveillance” of liberals in the 1960’s. Along with the “Palmer Raids” which involved thousands of arrests on “flimsy evidence” to deport them from the country.
Bouie also brings up slavery. Mostly to imply that believing COVID policies were a significant infringement on civil liberties means Gorsuch is ignoring it.
But in the same way Bouie believes Gorsuch’s opinion says a lot about him, this piece says a lot about Bouie.
He downplays COVID restrictions as “restrictions on in-person gatherings,” saying he’s “skeptical” about their impact on civil liberties.
“It is certainly possible that even judged against the full weight of American history, the Covid restrictions on in-person gatherings were an exceptional and egregious assault on civil liberties. But I’m skeptical.”
Bouie also ignores that pointing out the intrusions caused by COVID mandates does not mean Gorsuch is ignoring history.
It’s quite possible to believe that lockdowns, business closures, fines and arrests were unacceptable AND that slavery was unacceptable.
Bouie Misses The Point
COVID shutdowns denied Americans their constitutionally guaranteed right to freely practice their religion. They forced business owners to lose their livelihoods, based on nonsensical, arbitrary criteria created by unaccountable, unelected “experts.”
Politicians denied individuals the right to enter government buildings without wearing a mask or being vaccinated. Joe Biden himself tried to ensure that private businesses had to fire unvaccinated employees.
Many businesses enacted discriminatory policies in anticipation of his authoritarian overreach. That order was thankfully deemed illegal, but a similar mandate for healthcare workers was allowed to continue.
Thousands of unvaccinated nurses and other medical professionals losing their jobs is apparently not enough to convince the “skeptical” Bouie.
It is inarguable fact that COVID lockdowns and mandates were one of the country’s greatest peacetime incursions on civil liberties. That doesn’t mean there haven’t been others. And it doesn’t mean that Gorsuch is ignoring slavery.
But the ease with which Bouie and others of his ideology accepted and promoted COVID lockdowns and mandates shows how easy it is for civil liberties to be tossed aside when politically favorable.
Ironically, in trying to expose Gorsuch, Bouie exposed himself.
One CommentLeave a Reply
The China funded NY Times coming out against Gorsuch just shows that Gorsuch is correct.