Democrats Now Spending Millions to Defend Senator Patty Murray From Tiffany Smiley in Washington State

[Weatherman2020]

“the fact that Democrats are spending to shore up an incumbent in a solidly blue state is not a good sign for them”

Once solid blue anywhere in the US is a thing of the past.

Democrats Spending Millions to Defend Senator Patty Murray From Tiffany Smiley in Washington State

'the fact that Democrats are spending to shore up an incumbent in a solidly blue state is not a good sign for them'

legalinsurrection.com

 

[Moonglow]

That is the purpose of PACs and Super Pacs.

 

[notmyfault2020]

“the fact that Democrats are spending to shore up an incumbent in a solidly blue state is not a good sign for them”

Once solid blue anywhere in the US is a thing of the past.

Democrats Spending Millions to Defend Senator Patty Murray From Tiffany Smiley in Washington State

'the fact that Democrats are spending to shore up an incumbent in a solidly blue state is not a good sign for them'

legalinsurrection.com

that baby killing witch needs to go just for being in Congress 30 years (or a public "servant" that long.. whatever)

 

[Moonglow]

that baby killing witch needs to go just for being in Congress 30 years (or a public "servant" that long.. whatever)

God kills babies also and yet people worship him.

 

[Catsnmeters]

that baby killing witch needs to go just for being in Congress 30 years (or a public "servant" that long.. whatever)

Which baby did she kill?

 

[Concerned American]

“the fact that Democrats are spending to shore up an incumbent in a solidly blue state is not a good sign for them”

Once solid blue anywhere in the US is a thing of the past.

Democrats Spending Millions to Defend Senator Patty Murray From Tiffany Smiley in Washington State

'the fact that Democrats are spending to shore up an incumbent in a solidly blue state is not a good sign for them'

legalinsurrection.com

Yeah, they are terrified of Smiley and rightfully so. Patty Murray has been broadcasting hit pieces since before the primary. Strange that---the primary field had 16 contenders and she focused on Smiley, a novice. The current poll numbers show it is a dead heat--not a good look for Murray. She is a arrogant, lying *****.

 

[Concerned American]

Which baby did she kill?

Since 1992, with her support of RvW, probably about 30 million.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Since 1992, with her support of RvW, probably about 30 million.

Ahh, those weren't babies silly, they were fetuses.

That said, a politician supporting a constitutional right; why would that bother you?

 

[1srelluc]

Sorta surprising since RCP still shows her as 8.5 points out.....It's a good thing though, that means they are wasting money there instead of on floundering dems elsewhere.

 

[Concerned American]

Ahh, those weren't babies silly, they were fetuses.

That said, a politician supporting a constitutional right; why would that bother you?

Please show me where in the constitution that it says that the murder of an innocent life is a right. I'll wait.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Please show me where in the constitution that it says that the murder of an innocent life is a right. I'll wait.

Nothing in the constitution says murder is a right. Murder is a legal term and is the UNLAWFUL taking if a life. Since abortions were, and still are in many areas, legal; then by definition abortion can't be murder.

As for your question as it applies to abortion. Before the recent activist SCOTUS ruling, abortion could be found in the 9th amendment between the right to marry and presumption of innocence.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Ahh, those weren't babies silly, they were fetuses.

That said, a politician supporting a constitutional right; why would that bother you?

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Nothing in the constitution says murder is a right. Murder is a legal term and is the UNLAWFUL taking if a life. Since abortions were, and still are in many areas, legal; then by definition abortion can't be murder.

As for your question as it applies to abortion. Before the recent activist SCOTUS ruling, abortion could be found in the 9th amendment between the right to marry and presumption of innocence.

Where does it say that defending US borders is unconstitutional, since you don't want to answer the same question in another thread?

 

[Concerned American]

abortion could be found in the 9th amendment

Is that so? Please link the word "abortion" anywhere in the constitution. The SCOTUS cannot change the constitution moron. Educate yourself. SCOTUS rulings are not in the constitution, they are interpretations of the constitution. RvW was a wrong-headed interpretation.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Where does it say that defending US borders is unconstitutional, since you don't want to answer the same question in another thread?

Lol. Your desperation is palpable. Running to another thread and disrupting the thread topic to perpetuate your self serving arguments from a completely different thread. Wow.

The definition of triggered.

You are a real piece of work.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Lol. Your desperation is palpable. Running to another thread and disrupting the thread topic to perpetuate your self serving arguments from a completely different thread. Wow.

The definition of triggered.

You are a real piece of work.

Just be honest and say you don't want to or aren't smart enough to answer the question.

 

[Concerned American]

Running to another thread

Nice attempt at a dodge. So where is that link where abortion is mentioned in the constitution?

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Nice attempt at a dodge. So where is that link where abortion is mentioned in the constitution?

I'd like to know. I know that abortion has existed throughout human history, but the women who were around for the founding of this nation were not nearly as slutty as women these days, so there must not have been a lot of specific talk about abortion.

Catsnmeters, how about it?

 

[Catsnmeters]

Is that so? Please link the word "abortion" anywhere in the constitution. The SCOTUS cannot change the constitution moron. Educate yourself. SCOTUS rulings are not in the constitution, they are interpretations of the constitution. RvW was a wrong-headed interpretation.

SCOTUS didn't change the constitution. The 9th amendment has always been there. The 9th amendments soul existence is so that SCOTUS can determine rights based on the implied intent of the constitution. Just like the right to marry, travel and presumption of innocence.

The 9th was a compromise between the federalist and anti federalist when the bill of rights was being adopted...similar to the 10th amendment.

Don't take my word for it though, here is what James Madison had to say...

"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to [his version of the amendment]."

Why Should We Care About the Ninth Amendment? - FindLaw

Most people (and frankly, even most lawyers) haven't spent a lot of time thinking about the Ninth Amendment, but it could have hidden potential.

www.findlaw.com

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

SCOTUS didn't change the constitution. The 9th amendment has always been there. The 9th amendments soul existence is so that SCOTUS can determine rights based on the implied intent of the constitution. Just like the right to marry, travel and presumption of innocence.

The 9th was a compromise between the federalist and anti federalist when the bill of rights was being adopted...similar to the 10th amendment.

Don't take my word for it though, here is what James Madison had to say...

"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to [his version of the amendment]."

Why Should We Care About the Ninth Amendment? - FindLaw

Most people (and frankly, even most lawyers) haven't spent a lot of time thinking about the Ninth Amendment, but it could have hidden potential.

www.findlaw.com

Nice try.