Nancy Pelosi has never needed armed security either. Should she have her access to it removed on those grounds?In over 200 years, we have never needed the Second Ammendment
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Nancy Pelosi has never needed armed security either. Should she have her access to it removed on those grounds?In over 200 years, we have never needed the Second Ammendment
About which they never should have been asked. They're supposed to be independent, not reliable liberal lap dogs.
Hysteria reigns.Biden was being completely honest. This SC is out to overturn all citizens rights. Because the white guys at the Federalist Society want a Christian theocracy.
This law won't stand because it can't. Abortion became a right because women were dying from back alley abortions. Women are now dying because doctors won't help them if they miscarry for fear they'll be attacked for performing abortions.
I believe the Constitution should be applied as written, and apparently, so do they. Why is that a "conservative" stance? I would think that anyone who values the rule of law instead of mob force would want it that way.They were most certainly asked before being nominated. Why not after? If they're supposed to be independent, why don't you complain about them being conservative lap dogs?
Calling out the media for obvious bias is "attacking the integrity and trust in a Free Press"? No. We should NOT trust a biased press to give us the whole story.Nice try Skippy
It is Republicans who have been attacking the integrity and trust in a Free Press and our voting process
The cornerstones of our Democracy
False. Attacking false reporting by attaching that label to it is perfectly fine. If your propaganda ministry media can dispense with honesty in its reporting, simply noting it isn’t deceptive. It is merely attaching the proper warning label.Very true
Attacking dishonest reporting by providing credible facts is acceptable
Attacking news you don’t like as “fake news” with no facts is deceptive
There is no litmus test that a person must pass in order to be confirmed. It goes both ways. You leftists need to grow up. You love having your day, but whine and tear things up when the right has their day.Maybe because they lied about their intent
The Supreme Court is not above reproach.
They are judged by all Americans and will be judged by History
Interesting but ignorant response. Can I correct the voids in your educational history here? Nah. Besides, you’re impervious to facts anyway.Interesting spin on history
Can you show which “people” refused to ratify the Constitution without a 2nd amendment?
The impasse was resolved only when revolutionary heroes and leading Anti-Federalists Samuel Adams and John Hancockagreed to ratification on the condition that the convention also propose amendments.[29]The convention's proposed amendments included a requirement for grand juryindictment in capital cases, which would form part of the Fifth Amendment, and an amendment reserving powers to the states not expressly given to the federal government, which would later form the basis for the Tenth Amendment.[30]
Following Massachusetts' lead, the Federalist minorities in both Virginia and New York were able to obtain ratification in convention by linking ratification to recommended amendments.[31]
You would expect a judge to answer honestly. If you believed Roe was unconstitutional, you should say soSo
There is no litmus test that a person must pass in order to be confirmed. It goes both ways. You leftists need to grow up. You love having your day, but whine and tear things up when the right has their day.
Define what a woman is.You would expect a judge to answer honestly. If you believed Roe was unconstitutional, you should say so
You don’t lie and declare Roe to be settled law
You can bet they didn’t say that to Trump
So what is Abe referring to in that quote?"The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon the vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers."
Abraham Lincoln
Look it up, if you already haven't.So what is Abe referring to in that quote?
I did. It's from his first inaugural address. What's your point?Look it up, if you already haven't.
That doesn't answer the question of what he was referring to. So I'll give it to you. He was talking about the Dred Scott ruling denying blacks US citizenship. Saying that the people have lost their ability to rule themselves if an un-elected tribunal can make such consequential decisions for the "whole people."I did. It's from his first inaugural address. What's your point?
And I agree with that. What's your point?That doesn't answer the question of what he was referring to. So I'll give it to you. He was talking about the Dred Scott ruling denying blacks US citizenship. Saying that the people have lost their ability to rule themselves if an un-elected tribunal can make such consequential decisions for the "whole people."
That under the circumstances I hope more of this occurs.And I agree with that. What's your point?
Whatever. The abortion decision puts it on the states to decide. The Federal government has no business being involved in the abortion industry.That under the circumstances I hope more of this occurs.
“Not all of us agree on a personal or moral level on the issue of abortion,” said the statement signed by 84 prosecutors, a group that included district attorneys and state attorneys general. “But we stand together in our firm belief that prosecutors have a responsibility to refrain from using limited criminal legal system resources to criminalize personal medical decisions. As such, we decline to use our offices’ resources to criminalize reproductive health decisions and commit to exercise our well-settled discretion and refrain from prosecuting those who seek, provide, or support abortions.”
The Federal government has no business being involved in the decisions surrounding having an abortion.The Federal government has no business being involved in the abortion industry.