Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Roe legalized Abortion on Demand across the fruited plain, bypassing the legislative process entirely.
And that's , BTW, why it still isn't accepted as legitimate by many millions of Americans.
The Civil Rights Act, on the other hand, was opposed by large segments of the Far Left- guys like Gore Sr., Byrd and Fulbright who wanted to maintain Jim Crow. However, it was passed by Congress, and even those who disagreed with it understood it was legitimate and accepted it as a valid law.
Every medical procedure is "on demand" unless one is out cold in an ER.
Nobody cares whether something is "accepted as legitimate" by someone else. The "legislative process" has nothing to do with the right of a person to rule on what she wants done with her body and what her choice of beliefs happens to be. Do you want to order someone in the U.S. to submit to the most extreme forms of Islamic Sharia law, Jewish law, Hindu law, for instance? By legislative fiat?
Sharia law implemented by a State would be unconstitutional via the 1st amendment (establishment clause) and the 14th (incorporation of said amendment to the States)
Yet funny that you are OK with "bake that fucking cake, peasant"
But you are okay with the establishment of religion so long as it is some fundie crap. You also are against the 14th Amendment when you find out that it protects all Americans.
That stupid bimbo in Colorado put himself under the rule of law when he took out a business license, and (perhaps, I don't know for sure) incorporated.
What about legislators in places like Texas that try to force Christian sharia law on women? You are the one arguing that it is permissible for a state to force religious law on its citizens.
There is no such thing as Christian Sharia law. You're complaining about something that doesn't exist.
Bullshit. We see it all over the country. Texas, the Dakotas, Kansas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and many other places. All Christian sharia. All pushed by "Christian" bibble-thumpers. Sharia is here in our midst. Pigpence comes to mind, and he is playing at being vice president of the entire country. They have even spread sharia law in our executive-branch departments. This dirt is all over the place.
Roe legalized Abortion on Demand across the fruited plain, bypassing the legislative process entirely.
And that's , BTW, why it still isn't accepted as legitimate by many millions of Americans.
The Civil Rights Act, on the other hand, was opposed by large segments of the Far Left- guys like Gore Sr., Byrd and Fulbright who wanted to maintain Jim Crow. However, it was passed by Congress, and even those who disagreed with it understood it was legitimate and accepted it as a valid law.
Every medical procedure is "on demand" unless one is out cold in an ER.
Nobody cares whether something is "accepted as legitimate" by someone else. The "legislative process" has nothing to do with the right of a person to rule on what she wants done with her body and what her choice of beliefs happens to be. Do you want to order someone in the U.S. to submit to the most extreme forms of Islamic Sharia law, Jewish law, Hindu law, for instance? By legislative fiat?
Sharia law implemented by a State would be unconstitutional via the 1st amendment (establishment clause) and the 14th (incorporation of said amendment to the States)
Yet funny that you are OK with "bake that fucking cake, peasant"
But you are okay with the establishment of religion so long as it is some fundie crap. You also are against the 14th Amendment when you find out that it protects all Americans.
That stupid bimbo in Colorado put himself under the rule of law when he took out a business license, and (perhaps, I don't know for sure) incorporated.
What about legislators in places like Texas that try to force Christian sharia law on women? You are the one arguing that it is permissible for a state to force religious law on its citizens.
There is no such thing as Christian Sharia law. You're complaining about something that doesn't exist.
Bullshit. We see it all over the country. Texas, the Dakotas, Kansas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and many other places. All Christian sharia. All pushed by "Christian" bibble-thumpers. Sharia is here in our midst. Pigpence comes to mind, and he is playing at being vice president of the entire country. They have even spread sharia law in our executive-branch departments. This dirt is all over the place.
Face it, your sole complaint is abortion, and you think no one can oppose it for any reason other than religious belief.
There is no such thing as Christian Sharia.
I’m sure my opinion is not popular, but it makes sense to me that a legal judge should be completely impartial and only consider evidence, including scientific. NOT ANY faith-based arguments.
Therefore, if a judge nominee has a strong religious preference (not agnostic), then they should be eliminated from consideration.
I’m sure my opinion is not popular, but it makes sense to me that a legal judge should be completely impartial and only consider evidence, including scientific. NOT ANY faith-based arguments.
Therefore, if a judge nominee has a strong religious preference (not agnostic), then they should be eliminated from consideration.
Y mean like appointing a female Latino who openly said her decisions would be based on her race and personal opinions as a LATINO FEMALE? Like that?The problem is that we have to ascertain that a judicial nominee will be fair and impartial if appointed to the bench.
We have had judges and other officials who have attempted to exercise the powers of their offices to advance their personal religious agendas instead of abiding by the rule of law. How do we guarantee that a person given power will not do this? This is an assurance that all Americans deserve to have.
Y mean like appointing a female Latino who openly said her decisions would be based on her race and personal opinions as a LATINO FEMALE? Like that?The problem is that we have to ascertain that a judicial nominee will be fair and impartial if appointed to the bench.
We have had judges and other officials who have attempted to exercise the powers of their offices to advance their personal religious agendas instead of abiding by the rule of law. How do we guarantee that a person given power will not do this? This is an assurance that all Americans deserve to have.
Every medical procedure is "on demand" unless one is out cold in an ER.
Nobody cares whether something is "accepted as legitimate" by someone else. The "legislative process" has nothing to do with the right of a person to rule on what she wants done with her body and what her choice of beliefs happens to be. Do you want to order someone in the U.S. to submit to the most extreme forms of Islamic Sharia law, Jewish law, Hindu law, for instance? By legislative fiat?
Sharia law implemented by a State would be unconstitutional via the 1st amendment (establishment clause) and the 14th (incorporation of said amendment to the States)
Yet funny that you are OK with "bake that fucking cake, peasant"
But you are okay with the establishment of religion so long as it is some fundie crap. You also are against the 14th Amendment when you find out that it protects all Americans.
That stupid bimbo in Colorado put himself under the rule of law when he took out a business license, and (perhaps, I don't know for sure) incorporated.
What about legislators in places like Texas that try to force Christian sharia law on women? You are the one arguing that it is permissible for a state to force religious law on its citizens.
There is no such thing as Christian Sharia law. You're complaining about something that doesn't exist.
Bullshit. We see it all over the country. Texas, the Dakotas, Kansas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and many other places. All Christian sharia. All pushed by "Christian" bibble-thumpers. Sharia is here in our midst. Pigpence comes to mind, and he is playing at being vice president of the entire country. They have even spread sharia law in our executive-branch departments. This dirt is all over the place.
Sorry, no Sharia. Your paranoia is causing you to hyperventilate.
Face it, your sole complaint is abortion, and you think no one can oppose it for any reason other than religious belief.
There is no such thing as Christian Sharia.
How did you get so stupid?I’m sure my opinion is not popular, but it makes sense to me that a legal judge should be completely impartial and only consider evidence, including scientific. NOT ANY faith-based arguments.
Therefore, if a judge nominee has a strong religious preference (not agnostic), then they should be eliminated from consideration.
Moron, you have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion, and I don't care if a judge is Muslim, if the follows US law, what God he worships is none of your business and certainly isn't something the government should be dictating. In fact , moron, this was the entire reasoning behind freedom of religion, it wasn't so that you wouldn't have to see that scary nativity scene on public ground it was so the government couldn't say " you don't believe the same as us, so therefor you can't participate"
I swear , how did you liberals get so stupid?
How did you get so stupid?I’m sure my opinion is not popular, but it makes sense to me that a legal judge should be completely impartial and only consider evidence, including scientific. NOT ANY faith-based arguments.
Therefore, if a judge nominee has a strong religious preference (not agnostic), then they should be eliminated from consideration.
Moron, you have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion, and I don't care if a judge is Muslim, if the follows US law, what God he worships is none of your business and certainly isn't something the government should be dictating. In fact , moron, this was the entire reasoning behind freedom of religion, it wasn't so that you wouldn't have to see that scary nativity scene on public ground it was so the government couldn't say " you don't believe the same as us, so therefor you can't participate"
I swear , how did you liberals get so stupid?
Would you want an illogical person judging your case?
A judge who believes in imaginary beings, ghosts, tooth fairies ... instead of logical evidence?
Y mean like appointing a female Latino who openly said her decisions would be based on her race and personal opinions as a LATINO FEMALE? Like that?The problem is that we have to ascertain that a judicial nominee will be fair and impartial if appointed to the bench.
We have had judges and other officials who have attempted to exercise the powers of their offices to advance their personal religious agendas instead of abiding by the rule of law. How do we guarantee that a person given power will not do this? This is an assurance that all Americans deserve to have.
Now that is different
somehow
Agnosticism does not pretend to know. Belief is based on evidence, not faith.I’m sure my opinion is not popular, but it makes sense to me that a legal judge should be completely impartial and only consider evidence, including scientific. NOT ANY faith-based arguments.
Therefore, if a judge nominee has a strong religious preference (not agnostic), then they should be eliminated from consideration.
Agnosticism is a very strong religious preference here in America. I don't see where the Agnostic Faithful should be considered more qualified than those of other faiths.
I called you a homophobe because thats what you are. Your afraid of homosexuals most likely due to you having homosexual tendencies you wish to suppress. As a matter of fact it proves my point. You feel gay people getting married affects you because you are a homosexual. If you were hetero like me you would not feel any threat or change to your life by gay people getting married.
Who told you I hated truth, decency, and sanity?I called you a homophobe because thats what you are. Your afraid of homosexuals most likely due to you having homosexual tendencies you wish to suppress. As a matter of fact it proves my point. You feel gay people getting married affects you because you are a homosexual. If you were hetero like me you would not feel any threat or change to your life by gay people getting married.
By that logic, are we to suppose that your fear/hatred of truth, decency, and sanity means that deep down, you harbor secret desires to be truthful, sane, and decent, and are deeply disgusted by these desires in yourself?
Y mean like appointing a female Latino who openly said her decisions would be based on her race and personal opinions as a LATINO FEMALE? Like that?The problem is that we have to ascertain that a judicial nominee will be fair and impartial if appointed to the bench.
We have had judges and other officials who have attempted to exercise the powers of their offices to advance their personal religious agendas instead of abiding by the rule of law. How do we guarantee that a person given power will not do this? This is an assurance that all Americans deserve to have.
Now that is different
somehow
We have already had a white Catholic boy, Scalia, who made no secret that he would decide according to his race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. This was out in the open and totally shameless.
Y mean like appointing a female Latino who openly said her decisions would be based on her race and personal opinions as a LATINO FEMALE? Like that?The problem is that we have to ascertain that a judicial nominee will be fair and impartial if appointed to the bench.
We have had judges and other officials who have attempted to exercise the powers of their offices to advance their personal religious agendas instead of abiding by the rule of law. How do we guarantee that a person given power will not do this? This is an assurance that all Americans deserve to have.
Now that is different
somehow
We have already had a white Catholic boy, Scalia, who made no secret that he would decide according to his race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. This was out in the open and totally shameless.
What does "decide according to his race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation" even mean? It , of course, means nothing, it's simply more mumbo jumbo uttered by idiots such as yourself.
That Scalia made rulings YOU disagree with doesn't mean he did things illegally.
Y mean like appointing a female Latino who openly said her decisions would be based on her race and personal opinions as a LATINO FEMALE? Like that?The problem is that we have to ascertain that a judicial nominee will be fair and impartial if appointed to the bench.
We have had judges and other officials who have attempted to exercise the powers of their offices to advance their personal religious agendas instead of abiding by the rule of law. How do we guarantee that a person given power will not do this? This is an assurance that all Americans deserve to have.
Now that is different
somehow
We have already had a white Catholic boy, Scalia, who made no secret that he would decide according to his race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. This was out in the open and totally shameless.
What does "decide according to his race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation" even mean? It , of course, means nothing, it's simply more mumbo jumbo uttered by idiots such as yourself.
That Scalia made rulings YOU disagree with doesn't mean he did things illegally.
He dragged his personal feelings all over town. He made no secret of them. He wrote his opinions according to his personal views on these issues, rather than sitting as an impartial judge.
Y mean like appointing a female Latino who openly said her decisions would be based on her race and personal opinions as a LATINO FEMALE? Like that?
Now that is different
somehow
We have already had a white Catholic boy, Scalia, who made no secret that he would decide according to his race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. This was out in the open and totally shameless.
What does "decide according to his race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation" even mean? It , of course, means nothing, it's simply more mumbo jumbo uttered by idiots such as yourself.
That Scalia made rulings YOU disagree with doesn't mean he did things illegally.
He dragged his personal feelings all over town. He made no secret of them. He wrote his opinions according to his personal views on these issues, rather than sitting as an impartial judge.
Who gives a shit as long as he followed the law, moron? Also, there is no such thing as an impartial judge, or even as an impartial human being.
God damn you people are stupid and dishonest.
Now that is different
somehow
We have already had a white Catholic boy, Scalia, who made no secret that he would decide according to his race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. This was out in the open and totally shameless.
What does "decide according to his race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation" even mean? It , of course, means nothing, it's simply more mumbo jumbo uttered by idiots such as yourself.
That Scalia made rulings YOU disagree with doesn't mean he did things illegally.
He dragged his personal feelings all over town. He made no secret of them. He wrote his opinions according to his personal views on these issues, rather than sitting as an impartial judge.
Who gives a shit as long as he followed the law, moron? Also, there is no such thing as an impartial judge, or even as an impartial human being.
God damn you people are stupid and dishonest.
He did not follow the law. He followed his personal feelings in a very dishonest way. He just was a Catholic man who followed his "beliefs".
