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.
Bad law needs to be overturned and brought into compliance with the Constitution, not the other way around. We have had decades of activist courts stretching, twisting, pulling, and sometimes even referencing foreign law in attempts to circumvent the plain meaning of the Constitution.
There are plenty of long held traditions that were overturned by the court, and you applauded them, so don't get self-righteous and bloviate about "legal precedence" as if it's somehow so sacred it cannot be touched, or that it has never been touched before.The Court is now willing to ignore 200 years of legal precedence in favor of the views of 18th century Americans
If you did not need it in the 1700s, you do not need it now
Here it comes….
MSN
www.msn.com
Justice Clarence Thomas said the court should reconsider rulings that protect access to contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.
Justice Thomas is one of the greatest Supreme Court justices of all time, and has a tremendous, almost unbelievable, percentage of correct votes.
And he's on target here. There is no right to abortion in the constitution and there is no right to take it in the caboose either.
OTOH, the right to bear arms is right there in the Bill of Fucking Rights.
You libs really need to try to pass constitutional amendments if you want to eliminate the 2nd Amendment and want to add a right to Sodomy.
Kind of demolished your own hysterical bleating there. Naturally, you support overturning that one, as well as several others, but you can't credibly complain about overturning long held traditions when you do that.I see Justice Thomas does not honor the long held tradition of banning Interracial Marriage
Our founders did not support it, why should Thomas be allowed to ignore their Will on who he can marry?
I see Justice Thomas does not honor the long held tradition of banning Interracial Marriage
Our founders did not support it, why should Thomas be allowed to ignore their Will on who he can marry?
FDR couldn't do it, now Brandon will?I was willing to take a wait and see position on the TRUMPCourt
They said they would honor Judicial precedence and not legislate from the Bench.
I expected a Conservative court but a court that would not run roughshod over individual rights
Completely discarding Roe v Wade, eroding Miranda protections, restricting states from regulating gun possession all run contrary to the Will of We the People.
Democrats have six months to abandon the Senate Filibuster and legally change the number of Supreme Court Justices
If you did not need it in the 1700s, you do not need it now
If women really care, they will force out those State Representatives who restrict abortion
If our founders wanted you to have anAR 15 they would have said soThat's your view on guns, right?
Pro-abort women only. The pro-life movement is FULL of women.
The will of the people don't make Supreme Court decisions. Why do you have a tough time understanding the Constitution?I was willing to take a wait and see position on the TRUMPCourt
They said they would honor Judicial precedence and not legislate from the Bench.
I expected a Conservative court but a court that would not run roughshod over individual rights
Completely discarding Roe v Wade, eroding Miranda protections, restricting states from regulating gun possession all run contrary to the Will of We the People.
Democrats have six months to abandon the Senate Filibuster and legally change the number of Supreme Court Justices
They did.If our founders wanted you to have anAR 15 they would have said so
If our founders wanted you to have anAR 15 they would have said so
Same with a lot of things the founders never envisionedSame with an abortion, right?
And that's the way it should be, per the Constitution. Do you think this will stem the tide of those fleeing repressive blue states for free red states?What has happened is Abortion has moved from a national issue to a local issue
It doesnt matter who is on SCOTUS now, it will be that local State Senator or State Representative who will decide access to abortion in your state
If women really care, they will force out those State Representatives who restrict abortion
If they don’t, they have only themselves to blame
If they wanted you to have the ability to send messages to thousands of people instantaneously and completely anonymously, they would have said so.If our founders wanted you to have anAR 15 they would have said so
That's why they built in the ability to AMEND the Constitution. If enough people want abortion to be a Constitutional right, they can make it be one.Same with a lot of things the founders never envisioned
