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.
Nice Copy & Paste without attribution of a copyrighted piece you damn thief. At the bottom of the article one can read [ © 2016 LawNewz, LLC ], but you violated the fair use doctrine. Learn how to attribute/cite the SOURCE MATERIAL. By way of example at the bottom of the C&P, < Supreme Court Nominee Merrick Garland: Tough on Crime, but Soft on Guns? >The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, eventually went to the Supreme Court, which ruled the ban unconstitutional. While Garland’s actual decision was only to review the law and not to enforce it outright, the fact that he didn’t just agree to kill the ban may not sit well with conservatives.
Even more concerning for gun lovers is Garland’s 2000 decision in NRA v. Reno. In that case, the National Rifle Association fought against retention of background check information that is collected when people legally purchase guns. The NRA argued that the information was required to be immediately destroyed under the Brady Act. Then-Attorney General Janet Reno’s position was that it was necessary and allowed under the act to retain the data for six months in order to audit the background check system. Garland ruled in Reno’s favor, stating that her interpretation of the Brady Act was reasonable.
The people we kill with drones love guns, sometimes have tons of them, and they are just as fucking dead eh? Keep that in mind,Maybe that was true once but it sure as shit ain't now. Now they can kill you in Kabul, Afghanistan, while drinking coffee in New Mexico...Obama Chooses Merrick Garland for Supreme Court......UNACCEPTABLE
Help for ya, no matter who you are, you probably won't like 50% of his decisions. Let's mush on...
BUT
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
Joseph Story
Supreme Court Justice
ONLY in the fascists' GUN FREE ZONES.
.
Nice Copy & Paste without attribution of a copyrighted piece you damn thief. At the bottom of the article one can read [ © 2016 LawNewz, LLC ], but you violated the fair use doctrine. Learn how to attribute/cite the SOURCE MATERIAL. By way of example at the bottom of the C&P, < Supreme Court Nominee Merrick Garland: Tough on Crime, but Soft on Guns? >The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, eventually went to the Supreme Court, which ruled the ban unconstitutional. While Garland’s actual decision was only to review the law and not to enforce it outright, the fact that he didn’t just agree to kill the ban may not sit well with conservatives.
Even more concerning for gun lovers is Garland’s 2000 decision in NRA v. Reno. In that case, the National Rifle Association fought against retention of background check information that is collected when people legally purchase guns. The NRA argued that the information was required to be immediately destroyed under the Brady Act. Then-Attorney General Janet Reno’s position was that it was necessary and allowed under the act to retain the data for six months in order to audit the background check system. Garland ruled in Reno’s favor, stating that her interpretation of the Brady Act was reasonable.
So you think 'servitude', doing Obama's and the Liberals' bidding is 'doing their job'?!Doing their job is not crumbling. Give Advice and Consent. That means voting...
The people we kill with drones love guns, sometimes have tons of them, and they are just as fucking dead eh? Keep that in mind,Maybe that was true once but it sure as shit ain't now. Now they can kill you in Kabul, Afghanistan, while drinking coffee in New Mexico...Obama Chooses Merrick Garland for Supreme Court......UNACCEPTABLE
Help for ya, no matter who you are, you probably won't like 50% of his decisions. Let's mush on...
BUT
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
Joseph Story
Supreme Court Justice
ONLY in the fascists' GUN FREE ZONES.
.
Here you don't need a gun, you need a lawyer. We've at least gotten that far...
Obama has done his part. Now it's the turn of the Senate. It's in the Constitution. You remember that old thing, right?So you think 'servitude', doing Obama's and the Liberals' bidding is 'doing their job'?!Doing their job is not crumbling. Give Advice and Consent. That means voting...
'Checks and Balances' does not mean 'do whatever the hell you want to and we'll make every step of the way easier for you'.
But that was FUNNY!
If you think that will be a check on the powers of the government, I can't help you...The people we kill with drones love guns, sometimes have tons of them, and they are just as fucking dead eh? Keep that in mind,Maybe that was true once but it sure as shit ain't now. Now they can kill you in Kabul, Afghanistan, while drinking coffee in New Mexico...Obama Chooses Merrick Garland for Supreme Court......UNACCEPTABLE
Help for ya, no matter who you are, you probably won't like 50% of his decisions. Let's mush on...
BUT
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
Joseph Story
Supreme Court Justice
ONLY in the fascists' GUN FREE ZONES.
.
Here you don't need a gun, you need a lawyer. We've at least gotten that far...
No, I need my .357 Magnum.
You are free to carry a daisy.
.
I'm not afraid to lay my dick out...you of course don't have one.
It's the Senate's job to vote up or down on a nomination. That's the "consent" part. Why are you so terrified of the Senate performing its Constitutional duty?So you think 'servitude', doing Obama's and the Liberals' bidding is 'doing their job'?!Doing their job is not crumbling. Give Advice and Consent. That means voting...
'Checks and Balances' does not mean 'do whatever the hell you want to and we'll make every step of the way easier for you'.
But that was FUNNY!
Please point out in the U.S. Constitution where Congress must give Obama what he wants.....Obama has done his part. Now it's the turn of the Senate. It's in the Constitution. You remember that old thing, right?
your kidding yourself if you think that the republicans would have ever been decent and willing to work with the president. in fact, your main criticism of him is born out of republican intransigence.Obama has the 'right' to nominate a fucking dog turd. It's in the Constitution right?The Founding Fathers put the Senate in place to stop the likes of Obama from behaving like a fucking Monarch.
Who was it that crowed: "Elections have consequences"?
Guess our 'Monarch-Lite' forgot that Senators are also elected.
So your saying that Obama doesn't have the right to nominate anybody? Or you are just blowing your racist shit again?
The Senate, according to the Constitution has the 'right' when and if they want to consider Obama's dog turd.
If Obama hadn't been such a fucking asshole from day one the way he habitually bypassed and ignored Congress and the Senate then he may have been able to put his choice on the SC.
You seem to think that there is some requirement for Congress to "work with" a president. They are there to keep him in check. The branches are co-equal in order to handcuff the others when necessary.
They don't have to give him what he wants. They have to VOTE on his nomination.Please point out in the U.S. Constitution where Congress must give Obama what he wants.....Obama has done his part. Now it's the turn of the Senate. It's in the Constitution. You remember that old thing, right?
Yeah, end of discussion.
See how easy it would be for the Republicans to do their job and vote against him? They've even got a reason. Why won't they?Sources say it's Merrick Garland, an anti gunnner
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama will nominate federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, congressional sources said Wednesday. The pick sets up a confrontation with Republicans who say they will refuse to consider his nomination in an election year.
Garland, 63, is the chief judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a court whose influence over federal policy and national security matters has made it a proving ground for potential Supreme Court justices.
News from The Associated Press
Remember when the pseudo-cons bitched and bitched and bitched about Harry Reid spiking legislation and not allowing it to be voted on in the Senate?
Remember that?
Rank hypocrites!
Yes, Really. Having been the victim of a plagiarist who stole my intellectual property and money from my pocket, I'm just a litt6le prickly about other plagiarists I happen to come across, you Goddamn thief! Hiding the source within a hyperlink in the first sentence of two paragraphs of copyrighted material doesn't give the thief plausible deniability, asshole. Especially without any indication it is a QUOTE form the actual source.Nice Copy & Paste without attribution of a copyrighted piece you damn thief. At the bottom of the article one can read [ © 2016 LawNewz, LLC ], but you violated the fair use doctrine. Learn how to attribute/cite the SOURCE MATERIAL. By way of example at the bottom of the C&P, < Supreme Court Nominee Merrick Garland: Tough on Crime, but Soft on Guns? >The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, eventually went to the Supreme Court, which ruled the ban unconstitutional. While Garland’s actual decision was only to review the law and not to enforce it outright, the fact that he didn’t just agree to kill the ban may not sit well with conservatives.
Even more concerning for gun lovers is Garland’s 2000 decision in NRA v. Reno. In that case, the National Rifle Association fought against retention of background check information that is collected when people legally purchase guns. The NRA argued that the information was required to be immediately destroyed under the Brady Act. Then-Attorney General Janet Reno’s position was that it was necessary and allowed under the act to retain the data for six months in order to audit the background check system. Garland ruled in Reno’s favor, stating that her interpretation of the Brady Act was reasonable.
Really?
Did you click on the html hyperlink ?
.
Obama Chooses Merrick Garland for Supreme Court
CN chief counsel Carrie Severino said in a blog post that Judge Merrick’s record on the bench since 1997 “leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
"Senate Democrats blocked legislation Wednesday aimed at boosting the scrutiny of some incoming refugees, after attempting to turn the debate into a referendum on immigration and Donald Trump's presidential campaign.
That's pretty much all you need to know about easyt65.That's pretty much all you need to know about Harry Reid and the progressive partisan liberals that have infected this nation's federal government, putting their own petty partisanship above the lives and security of this nation and its citizens. What a POS
