Who repubs really need

[eddiew]

a devoted Constitutionalist alright. He would try to take us back to the days when the document was written..slavery, women as 2nd class, landowners-only voters. Levin would fill Scalia's shoes nicely too. He also would think of money as speech just as the FF allowed only the wealthy landowners to vote. Levin also, like Scalia, would want small government EXCEPT when it comes to women's bodies and thinks of working women as 2/3 person when it comes to paychecks too. Striking guarantees of right-to-vote in States that traditionally placed roadblocks to voting in certain communities was also a high point of the Scalia philosophy that Levin would likely approve, along with gerrymandering districts. And going on pleasure jaunts like duck hunting with a person involved in litigation before the Court does not mean he wont adjudicate justly, so Scalia claimed. BTW, Scalia's buddy won the case. I'm sure Levin would be as open minded too even though I'm pretty sure both would throw a case out if this happened in a lower Court. I can see why you would recommend Levin,

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

a devoted Constitutionalist alright. He would try to take us back to the days when the document was written..slavery, women as 2nd class, landowners-only voters. Levin would fill Scalia's shoes nicely too. He also would think of money as speech just as the FF allowed only the wealthy landowners to vote. Levin also, like Scalia, would want small government EXCEPT when it comes to women's bodies and thinks of working women as 2/3 person when it comes to paychecks too. Striking guarantees of right-to-vote in States that traditionally placed roadblocks to voting in certain communities was also a high point of the Scalia philosophy that Levin would likely approve, along with gerrymandering districts. And going on pleasure jaunts like duck hunting with a person involved in litigation before the Court does not mean he wont adjudicate justly, so Scalia claimed. BTW, Scalia's buddy won the case. I'm sure Levin would be as open minded too even though I'm pretty sure both would throw a case out if this happened in a lower Court. I can see why you would recommend Levin,

This is an incredibly ill thought out argument, but that is hardly surprising. Yes, a president devoted to following the Constitution (pretty amazing this even has to be a question) would abide by the whole of the Constitution, meaning all the amendments that have also been passed over the years. Ergo, your inane argument that he would attempt to take us back to the days of slavery and male landowner voters is a poorly developed juvenile attempt by yourself to simply engage in flaming because you basically have nothing else to say.

 

[eddiew]

a devoted Constitutionalist alright. He would try to take us back to the days when the document was written..slavery, women as 2nd class, landowners-only voters. Levin would fill Scalia's shoes nicely too. He also would think of money as speech just as the FF allowed only the wealthy landowners to vote. Levin also, like Scalia, would want small government EXCEPT when it comes to women's bodies and thinks of working women as 2/3 person when it comes to paychecks too. Striking guarantees of right-to-vote in States that traditionally placed roadblocks to voting in certain communities was also a high point of the Scalia philosophy that Levin would likely approve, along with gerrymandering districts. And going on pleasure jaunts like duck hunting with a person involved in litigation before the Court does not mean he wont adjudicate justly, so Scalia claimed. BTW, Scalia's buddy won the case. I'm sure Levin would be as open minded too even though I'm pretty sure both would throw a case out if this happened in a lower Court. I can see why you would recommend Levin,

This is an incredibly ill thought out argument, but that is hardly surprising. Yes, a president devoted to following the Constitution (pretty amazing this even has to be a question) would abide by the whole of the Constitution, meaning all the amendments that have also been passed over the years. Ergo, your inane argument that he would attempt to take us back to the days of slavery and male landowner voters is a poorly developed juvenile attempt by yourself to simply engage in flaming because you basically have nothing else to say.

sorry I don't meet your standards

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

a devoted Constitutionalist alright. He would try to take us back to the days when the document was written..slavery, women as 2nd class, landowners-only voters. Levin would fill Scalia's shoes nicely too. He also would think of money as speech just as the FF allowed only the wealthy landowners to vote. Levin also, like Scalia, would want small government EXCEPT when it comes to women's bodies and thinks of working women as 2/3 person when it comes to paychecks too. Striking guarantees of right-to-vote in States that traditionally placed roadblocks to voting in certain communities was also a high point of the Scalia philosophy that Levin would likely approve, along with gerrymandering districts. And going on pleasure jaunts like duck hunting with a person involved in litigation before the Court does not mean he wont adjudicate justly, so Scalia claimed. BTW, Scalia's buddy won the case. I'm sure Levin would be as open minded too even though I'm pretty sure both would throw a case out if this happened in a lower Court. I can see why you would recommend Levin,

This is an incredibly ill thought out argument, but that is hardly surprising. Yes, a president devoted to following the Constitution (pretty amazing this even has to be a question) would abide by the whole of the Constitution, meaning all the amendments that have also been passed over the years. Ergo, your inane argument that he would attempt to take us back to the days of slavery and male landowner voters is a poorly developed juvenile attempt by yourself to simply engage in flaming because you basically have nothing else to say.

sorry I don't meet your standards

I doubt you ever will.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

No drive by flames in the Politics forum

 

[Iceweasel]

a devoted Constitutionalist alright. He would try to take us back to the days when the document was written..slavery, women as 2nd class, landowners-only voters. Levin would fill Scalia's shoes nicely too. He also would think of money as speech just as the FF allowed only the wealthy landowners to vote. Levin also, like Scalia, would want small government EXCEPT when it comes to women's bodies and thinks of working women as 2/3 person when it comes to paychecks too. Striking guarantees of right-to-vote in States that traditionally placed roadblocks to voting in certain communities was also a high point of the Scalia philosophy that Levin would likely approve, along with gerrymandering districts. And going on pleasure jaunts like duck hunting with a person involved in litigation before the Court does not mean he wont adjudicate justly, so Scalia claimed. BTW, Scalia's buddy won the case. I'm sure Levin would be as open minded too even though I'm pretty sure both would throw a case out if this happened in a lower Court. I can see why you would recommend Levin,

Is this a joke? When did Scalia support those things? When states violated the rights enumerated in the constitution, like the 3/5th rule for blacks (which was a compromise to get slave states on board with forming a republic) they were over ruled.

Women don't get payed 2/3rds the salary for the same work, where did you hear that? Women choose different fields and work less hours.

 

[Manonthestreet]

 

[Siete]

they need Carson to give them ALL a lobotomy.