AOC gives the country a civics lesson on the Colbert show

[Toddsterpatriot]

Kavanaugh and Barrett committed perjury during their confirmation hearings

Why do you feel that?

 

[Winston]

Why do you feel that?

Both claimed Roe v. Wade was settled law, and then they reversed it. A clear indication of perjury and they should be impeached.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Both claimed Roe v. Wade was settled law, and then they reversed it. A clear indication of perjury and they should be impeached.

Both claimed Roe v. Wade was settled law,

Settled law? What does that mean?

and then they reversed it.

"Settled law" can't be reversed? Why not?

 

[badbob85037]

First of all, I don't think the SCOTUS has the ability to declare when life is life. All this shit about the unborn is just that, shit. Do we adjust family size when someone becomes pregnant? Why do we have to wait until a baby is born to declare them a dependent? Can you take out life insurance on a fetus? The reality is the right wants to claim life begins at conception when it suits them, and it begins at birth when that suits them. From where I sit, that is sheer hypocrisy.

But more importantly, the founders never envisioned a Supreme Court where justices could serve 30, 40 years. Nor did they envision a Congress so dysfunctional as to block nominations waiting for an election or a Senate that was so blindly partisan.

For generations, Supreme Court nominees were treated with respect and judged, not by their party loyalty, but by the jurist ability. The votes bear that out, overwhelming bipartisan support for generations. Today, it is strictly a party split, most certainly not what the founders envisioned.

And packing the court worked for Roosevelt, not because he did it, but because the threat of doing it reined in an out of control court. That won't work this time. We should have 27 justices, cases assigned on a rotating random basis. Baring that, at the very least, Thomas needs to go, as do Kavanaugh and Barrett. Kavanaugh and Barrett committed perjury during their confirmation hearings and Thomas's unwillingness to recuse himself from countless cases as his fat ass ugly wife leads him around like he has a ring in his nose, bear impeachment.

God talked to David in the womb so that pretty much makes everything you said nothing but bull shit.

 

[wamose]

I bet she got horrible tips as a server.
Probably never shut up.

I don't know. She seems to be pretty good at selling dreams even though she's weak on facts and logic.

 

[Resnic]

I bet she got horrible tips as a server.
Probably never shut up.

No she probably got great tips because she was young and attractive which feed into her ego that she is super awesome.

Even a pretty **** is still a ****.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

First of all, I don't think the SCOTUS has the ability to declare when life is life. All this shit about the unborn is just that, shit. Do we adjust family size when someone becomes pregnant? Why do we have to wait until a baby is born to declare them a dependent? Can you take out life insurance on a fetus? The reality is the right wants to claim life begins at conception when it suits them, and it begins at birth when that suits them. From where I sit, that is sheer hypocrisy.

But more importantly, the founders never envisioned a Supreme Court where justices could serve 30, 40 years. Nor did they envision a Congress so dysfunctional as to block nominations waiting for an election or a Senate that was so blindly partisan.

For generations, Supreme Court nominees were treated with respect and judged, not by their party loyalty, but by the jurist ability. The votes bear that out, overwhelming bipartisan support for generations. Today, it is strictly a party split, most certainly not what the founders envisioned.

And packing the court worked for Roosevelt, not because he did it, but because the threat of doing it reined in an out of control court. That won't work this time. We should have 27 justices, cases assigned on a rotating random basis. Baring that, at the very least, Thomas needs to go, as do Kavanaugh and Barrett. Kavanaugh and Barrett committed perjury during their confirmation hearings and Thomas's unwillingness to recuse himself from countless cases as his fat ass ugly wife leads him around like he has a ring in his nose, bear impeachment.

Just a partisan lib hack rant. Nothing true here.

 

[Votto]

First of all, I don't think the SCOTUS has the ability to declare when life is life. All this shit about the unborn is just that, shit. Do we adjust family size when someone becomes pregnant? Why do we have to wait until a baby is born to declare them a dependent? Can you take out life insurance on a fetus? The reality is the right wants to claim life begins at conception when it suits them, and it begins at birth when that suits them. From where I sit, that is sheer hypocrisy.

But more importantly, the founders never envisioned a Supreme Court where justices could serve 30, 40 years. Nor did they envision a Congress so dysfunctional as to block nominations waiting for an election or a Senate that was so blindly partisan.

For generations, Supreme Court nominees were treated with respect and judged, not by their party loyalty, but by the jurist ability. The votes bear that out, overwhelming bipartisan support for generations. Today, it is strictly a party split, most certainly not what the founders envisioned.

And packing the court worked for Roosevelt, not because he did it, but because the threat of doing it reined in an out of control court. That won't work this time. We should have 27 justices, cases assigned on a rotating random basis. Baring that, at the very least, Thomas needs to go, as do Kavanaugh and Barrett. Kavanaugh and Barrett committed perjury during their confirmation hearings and Thomas's unwillingness to recuse himself from countless cases as his fat ass ugly wife leads him around like he has a ring in his nose, bear impeachment.

I would agree with some of your sentiments. For example, the fact that nine black robes can dictate to us what is Constitutional and is not Constitutional seem absurd to me. What if I disagree? What if half the nation disagrees? What if 100% of the nation disagrees, etc.?

Thomas Jefferson fought such power in the Marbury vs. Madison case, and lost. Jefferson blew a gasket when the precedent gave 9 black robes the power to dictate to us all what is Constitutional and what is not. I happen to agree with Jefferson, which is why I'm delighted to have the rest of the nation participate in the debate by giving it to the states. YOU on the other hand are happy with a system whereby politicians just appoint stooges to rule in a manner that we already know how they will rule before they open their collective mouths.

Complete absurdity. And to think you can force a divided nation to pretend they have no voice in this and never will, is equally absurd. It's as absurd as the Left thinking they can ever come for all the guns. The absurdity is that the term abortion is no where in the Constitution, but a right to bear arms is. No matter what black robes may tell the nation, they will never convince the nation that such a Constitutional right does not actually exist.

So what will happen is, democrats will ignore the ruling. They will defy the ruling while making their case that SCOTUS is illegitimate, much like the Left handles illegal immigration. They just ignore the federal laws on immigration and do whatever the hell they please. That means when states like Arizona try to enforce federal laws on immigration, Obama comes swooping in to sue them because a state cannot enforce federal immigration laws, however, when Trump gets into office and tries to enforce federal immigration laws, the states all of a sudden create sanctuary cities to defy him and the laws.

Democrats are fascists and lawless. They don't abide by laws because they are the law and cannot fathom sharing power of any kind, ever!!!

Lastly, I'm glad to see that you admit that SCOTUS was bullied by FDR, and that AOC admits it as well, and you and she also admit you want to manipulate and bully them again to get your way again.

Speaks volumes

Fascist.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

I bet she got horrible tips as a server.
Probably never shut up.

She did. That’s why she stole the tips of the harder workers. Perfect example of leftism.

 

[Votto]

This is classic AOC and democrat mind set

Israel = evil, just because.

Watch her go on for hours talk about how evil Israel is, but then when confronted on the facts to expand the talking points she has memorized, she draws a complete blank and admits that she is no real expert on the matter and should hot have rambled on for hours about it previously

Usually, politicians are good enough to deflect and smooth that sort of thing over, but with AOC she is just too damned stupid.

 

[Winston]

I would agree with some of your sentiments. For example, the fact that nine black robes can dictate to us what is Constitutional and is not Constitutional seem absurd to me. What if I disagree? What if half the nation disagrees? What if 100% of the nation disagrees, etc.?

Thomas Jefferson fought such power in the Marbury vs. Madison case, and lost. Jefferson blew a gasket when the precedent gave 9 black robes the power to dictate to us all what is Constitutional and what is not. I happen to agree with Jefferson, which is why I'm delighted to have the rest of the nation participate in the debate by giving it to the states. YOU on the other hand are happy with a system whereby politicians just appoint stooges to rule in a manner that we already know how they will rule before they open their collective mouths.

Complete absurdity. And to think you can force a divided nation to pretend they have no voice in this and never will, is equally absurd. It's as absurd as the Left thinking they can ever come for all the guns. The absurdity is that the term abortion is no where in the Constitution, but a right to bear arms is. No matter what black robes may tell the nation, they will never convince the nation that such a Constitutional right does not actually exist.

So what will happen is, democrats will ignore the ruling. They will defy the ruling while making their case that SCOTUS is illegitimate, much like the Left handles illegal immigration. They just ignore the federal laws on immigration and do whatever the hell they please. That means when states like Arizona try to enforce federal laws on immigration, Obama comes swooping in to sue them because a state cannot enforce federal immigration laws, however, when Trump gets into office and tries to enforce federal immigration laws, the states all of a sudden create sanctuary cities to defy him and the laws.

Democrats are fascists and lawless. They don't abide by laws because they are the law and cannot fathom sharing power of any kind, ever!!!

Lastly, I'm glad to see that you admit that SCOTUS was bullied by FDR, and that AOC admits it as well, and you and she also admit you want to manipulate and bully them again to get your way again.

Speaks volumes

Fascist.

LMAO,

"Jefferson blew a gasket when the precedent gave 9 black robes the power to dictate to us all what is Constitutional and what is not. I happen to agree with Jefferson,"

You can blow that smoke up someone else's ass, that dog ain't going to hunt with me. Those on the right are only too happy for the courts to strike down a law by declaring it unconstitutional. The concealed weapons laws in New York state, what happened to throwing it back to the states? Heller. In one case a state did make the decision, in another it was the special federal District of Columbia.

I mean there are AG's in several Republican states that pretty much don't do anything but sue the federal government over laws. They virtually beg the court to declare them unconstitutional. Biden's ban on selling additional oil and gas leases on federal land, nope, courts ruled that unconstitutional. Limits on corporate campaign contributions, nope, unconstitutional because corporations are people. Of course, people can't shield their assets from litigation.

And worse, when the courts have the audacity to refuse to declare some law the right doesn't like unconstitutional, well you yahoos go off your rockers. Can you say "Obamacare"? It didn't make a happy damn that the majority of the people wanted it and supported it, nope, some big wigs didn't like it, mostly that whole eliminating the doughnut hole thing, basing government compensation on hospital performance, subsidies to help people buy health insurance, and biggest of all--eliminating the chain of bondage that was employer provided health insurance. What the hell, you mean I can't keep Joe in his dead end job because his wife has MS anymore, horrors of horrors.

Call me a fascist, you stupid pricks don't even know the definition of Fascism. You sling words around like some dumbshit redneck plinking cans with is AR-15 and bumpstock slings bullets. Just like you make really really stupid statements like,

Jefferson blew a gasket when the precedent gave 9 black robes the power to dictate to us all what is Constitutional and what is not. I happen to agree with Jefferson,

Normally, Fascism is viewed as a fusion between the power of corporations and the power of the state. Well hello howdy, that pretty much defines our current SCOTUS.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Those on the right are only too happy for the courts to strike down a law by declaring it unconstitutional. The concealed weapons laws in New York state, what happened to throwing it back to the states?

Exactly!!

If a state wants to restrict free speech, arrest people without a warrant, perform unreasonable searches and seizures, ignore double jeopardy, never have a speedy trial, disregard confronting the witnesses against you, disallow trial by jury, allow excessive bail and excessive fines and inflict cruel and unusual punishment, that's AOK!!

 

[Winston]

Exactly!!

If a state wants to restrict free speech, arrest people without a warrant, perform unreasonable searches and seizures, ignore double jeopardy, never have a speedy trial, disregard confronting the witnesses against you, disallow trial by jury, allow excessive bail and excessive fines and inflict cruel and unusual punishment, that's AOK!!

And I get called a Fascist. This place is a damn hoot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And I get called a Fascist. This place is a damn hoot.

If the jackboot fits..........

 

[JustAGuy1]

Just gotta love that AOC = she belongs as the Speaker of the House yes she does

• Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez graduated cum laude from Boston University College of Arts and Sciences with a BA in 2011, majoring in international relations and economics.
  
  Just gotta love that AOC ....... among the all American women.
• 
  International Relations
• 
  In our fast-paced, increasingly interdependent world, the problems and policies of each nation have repercussions that are felt far beyond its borders.
• 
  Whether the issue is climatic change caused by carbon dioxide emissions or the rights of workers in factories owned by transnational corporations, decision makers in government and industry must now consider how their actions will affect people and places around the globe.
• 
  As an international relations major, you will draw from a variety of academic disciplines to gain a more complete picture of the issues and traditions that shape regions and nations.
• 
  Real World Outcomes:
  International relations majors are prepared to embark on exciting careers in many areas related to transnational issues and concerns.
• 
  Many have found employment with federal government agencies such as the Foreign Service, international or non-governmental organizations such as the United Nations or companies conducting business or finance operations internationally.
• Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez graduated cum laude from Boston University College of
  AArts and Sciences with a BA in 2011, majoring in international relations and economics.

All that "education" and is one of the biggest morons in Gov.

 

[flan327]

Just gotta love that AOC = she belongs as the Speaker of the House yes she does

• Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez graduated cum laude from Boston University College of Arts and Sciences with a BA in 2011, majoring in international relations and economics.
  
  Just gotta love that AOC ....... among the all American women.
• 
  International Relations
• 
  In our fast-paced, increasingly interdependent world, the problems and policies of each nation have repercussions that are felt far beyond its borders.
• 
  Whether the issue is climatic change caused by carbon dioxide emissions or the rights of workers in factories owned by transnational corporations, decision makers in government and industry must now consider how their actions will affect people and places around the globe.
• 
  As an international relations major, you will draw from a variety of academic disciplines to gain a more complete picture of the issues and traditions that shape regions and nations.
• 
  Real World Outcomes:
  International relations majors are prepared to embark on exciting careers in many areas related to transnational issues and concerns.
• 
  Many have found employment with federal government agencies such as the Foreign Service, international or non-governmental organizations such as the United Nations or companies conducting business or finance operations internationally.
• Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez graduated cum laude from Boston University College of
  AArts and Sciences with a BA in 2011, majoring in international relations and economics.

So why don’t YOU take her job?

 

[flan327]

All that "education" and is one of the biggest morons in Gov.

No junior

Not by a LONG SHOT

 

[Concerned American]

CITIZEN FREE PRESS

The Greatest News Site On The Internet. Home of CFP Nation.

citizenfreepress.com

Where to begin?

She starts by saying that "The Supreme Court has a power, its power is in whether its rulings are heated and respected, and if so, how much and to what extent. And when we have the framing of our government, the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court are suppose to be 3 co-equal branches, none with supremacy over the other, and when any one of the branches overreaches its authority it is the responsibility of the other two branches to check the overreach of that authority. The Supreme Court has engaged in the overreaching of its authority in denying the human and civil rights of pregnant people"

First of all, let me just give AOC props for not using the term woman which is now un-PC or using the term menstruating people, thus reducing women to the foul stench of their reproductive discharge by the words she used to describe them. Kudos! Instead, she decided to take the high road and just refer to them as people who are going to have a baby.............er.............um....................have a fetus inside them that may or may not be human.

As for the power of SCOTUS, that comes from the Constitution, and the parameters set up in the Constitution. What she means by saying that their power comes from whether or not its rulings are heated and respected is a real head scratcher. It seems to me that plenty of SCOTUS decisions were heated and not respected, especially in the South where the court ruled against segregation in the schools. In fact, after the Supreme Court verdict, Governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas called out the state National Guard to prevent Black students from attending high school in Little Rock in 1957. After a tense standoff, President Eisenhower deployed federal troops, and nine students—known as the “Little Rock Nine”—were able to enter Central High School under armed guard.

Sound heated to you. It certainly does me as the South had no respect whatsoever for the ruling or the court.

I wonder if AOC ever wondered why there were 3 branches. Did the Founding Fathers only envision SCOTUS make a ruling when the other two disagreed, just to be a tie breaker? Were they also to go along with the other two if they agreed to something just by default? That would have to be her position. But the role of SCOTUS under the Constitution is this:

First, as the highest court in the land, it is the court of last resort for those looking for justice. Second, due to its power of judicial review, it plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power. Third, it protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution. Finally, it sets appropriate limits on democratic government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities. In essence, it serves to ensure that the changing views of a majority do not undermine the fundamental values common to all Americans, i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law.

Did you hear that AOC? Just because the mobs who elected those to Congress and the President may want to infringe on the rights of others, that is those without a political voice, or just because this may cause a heated exchange, or just because Congress and the Executive don't want to go along with it, does not mean they should bow to them all. Roe vs. Wade failed to do one thing, and that is to navigate the humanity of the unborn. The Roe vs. Wade decision basically said it was unknowable and chose instead to hide behind the privacy of women instead. This would be akin to Abraham Lincoln deciding that the privacy of slave owners superseded the question as to the humanity of the slave, were they co-equals under the Constitution?

I also find it amusing that AOC says that SCOTUS is overreaching their authority by giving such authority to lower courts. In essence, the decisions now will be made by the grass roots voters of each individual state, something you would think would be great for democracy instead of a hand full of bureaucrats in Washington DC to make conservative states by liberal or vice versa.

Finally, the unborn will have their day in court as, for the first time, the question as to when life becomes life can be answered.

I think the word she used was "heeded" not "heated." I get your point though and agree whole heartedly.

 

[JustAGuy1]

No junior

Not by a LONG SHOT

Sorry kid, she is a dunce.

 

[Winston]

If the jackboot fits..........

Great. First, there are allowable restrictions on free speech. At the top of the list of justifications, "Security of the estate". If there is any threat to the security of a free state, reasonable restrictions can be imposed. Firing up a bunch of numbnuts to storm the capital and attempt to prevent the government from carrying out it's duties sees to be a threat to me. Maybe we can place some reasonable restrictions on the great Orange God.

Arrests without a warrant. That already happens. One justification is if the officer believes there is a destruction of evidence going on, you know, like when Trump took off with a bunch of files, or even when they had a shredding party.

Unreasonable searches and seizures, seriously, you don't think that doesn't go on every day. Get pulled over with ten grand in cash in your wallet and watch that shit disappear. Ignore double jeopardy, that one is easy, just file state charges and if they don't stick hit them with federal charges. And even if that don't stick, go the Civil Court route. Speedy trial, that one really cracked me up. Defendents can spend years in prison just waiting for trial, a lot of good your precious Constitution does them. Trial by jury, yeah, big whoop, we can make that jury anybody we want to. Because there ain't a damn thing in that Constitution about a "fair" trial.

Excessive bail, excessive fines, that shit is all relevant. Some poor person living in poverty, almost any fine is excessive and any bail is impossible. But hey, nobody has claimed this damn legal system is fair. It is all about the Benjamins.

And I am sorry, but we have already crossed the cruel and unusual punishment threshold. Capital punishment for the mentally ill, what flippin civilized country does that? And better, per Scalia, well just because a person is found innocent after trail, maybe through some DNA evidence of something, well that is no reason to rescind a death sentence. Ah, fawk it, kill them anyway, that is just part of how the system works.

And while all the above might seem bad, it is only going to get worse. I mean from your post, you don't give a damn. You are the real fascist. You are naive enough to believe that none of those things apply to you. But maybe one day you are not going to be able to swallow anymore. I mean it happens. You will be old, can't swallow, and the only way for you to survive over the short term is with a feeding tube, over the long term, a direct path to your stomach. But now, since health care decisions are left in the hands of the state, and since Medicare ain't got much money, you are destined to die a slow and miserable death as you literally starve to death. And hell, maybe you want to die, but that same state is going to prevent you from going quickly and without pain. Nope, can't circumvent "God's will", or so the Holy Rollers on the SCOTUS say. Nope, one day, you will get everything that is coming to you.