Post by Josh Rosenbluth Post by El Castor Post by Josh Rosenbluth Post by El Castor Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor Post by Josh Rosenbluth Post by El Castor Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Because of what happened to Garland, the person who wins in November
should nominate the replacement.
Yawn. You lose -- live with it.
In that case, you get to live with court packing if the Democrats take
back the Senate and White House.
Surely you are aware that the Garland excuse is bogus. Biden has come
down on both sides of that last months argument, solely based on which
party was advantaged. And yes, so have Republicans. It's all about
Correct! So, since McConnell lied when he said Garland wasn't about
politics, court-packing is within the realm of acceptable politics too.
Democrat and Republican politics and lies do not in any way justify
the destruction of the Supreme Court, and with it the Constitution. I
hope you understand that packing the Court is just the beginning of a
Court-packing ought to be a deterrent, not the desired result. But, if
you don't use the deterrent when you promised to, you never have a
deterrent. If the Democrats pack the court, because the republicans have
ignored the threat, hopefully it will jar the Republicans into
negotiating an equitable settlement that does not include court packing.
The president nominates, the senate approves. The President need not
and should not negotiate the Constitution. The Democrat scheme to pack
the court is transparent and despicable.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth Post by El Castor
High on the Left's agenda will be approval of "Hate Speech"
laws and with it, dismantling of the First Amendment.
We've been over this before. In the case of Westboro Baptist Church,
which protested at military funerals with signs such as "God Hates
Fags," the vote was 8-1 in favor of the church's right to freedom of
speech. The lone dissenter was conservative justice Alito.
Libereral Democrats are drooling at the prospect of hate speech
legislation, and your packed court will be glad to oblige.
He said, as he ignored that Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg are
all on record as saying there is no hate speech exception to the First
Of course, but wait! Times are changing. Now we've got the likes of
the Squad practically running your party and ANTIFA rioting in the
Here's an interesting piece, BTW,the author is a former Obama
administration official ...
"Why America needs a hate speech law"
"House Democrats try to censor free political speech with HR 1"
"Half of Democrats support a ban on hate speech"
"Democrats Attack 3 Of The 10 Amendments In The Bill Of Rights"
Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont and DNC chair, tweeted ...
"Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment."
How long before a Democrat hitches his wagon to this UN plan?
"UNITED NATIONS STRATEGY AND PLAN OF ACTION ON HATE SPEECH"
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Look at the
hate speech laws of Canada and Western Europe. Your Party is no
different. What is different is the US Constitution -- which Democrats
would gladly see interpreted into Hell.