Roe to be overturned!!!!

I don't believe it, but for sake of argument: How did the purported DRAFT ruling stop that? All the purported DRAFT ruling stated was it is not a Constitutional right (as many, many more things should not also be - my opinion added).

Go way back to chimp school 101 level:
We - are - a - Constitutional - Republic - not - a - Democracy
If we can keep it. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

I was responding to some nitwit who said 70% of Americans would support an abortion ban.

Just when I think you are a fairly reasonable person with an above average intelligence, you up and make an asinine statement such as this.

No Hope. Originally Posted by Jackie S

The majority of Americans agree with me as 60% believe that abortion should be legal in the first third of pregnancy.

I happen to be a part of the 60%. But in against late term abortion.

Third world imports turning the US into the third world.

Originally Posted by texassapper

A commentator mentioned today that possibly no law was broken, since these SCOTUS traditions are based on honor, DIGNITY, and moral fortitude.

Since Progressive/liberal/Socialist/Democrats have none of these, in their eyes he has done nothing wrong.

A commentator mentioned today that possibly no law was broken, since these SCOTUS traditions are based on honor, DIGNITY, and moral fortitude.

Since Progressive/liberal/Socialist/Democrats have none of these, in their eyes he has done nothing wrong. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Remember the Glass House we all live in....

Sounds like no laws were broken....wtf is the problem here?

A commentator mentioned today that possibly no law was broken, since these SCOTUS traditions are based on honor, DIGNITY, and moral fortitude.

Since Progressive/liberal/Socialist/Democrats have none of these, in their eyes he has done nothing wrong. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Probably true but the decorum of the court was certainly broken and many say this is unprecedented. But if and when the FBI asks every single person who might have done this and they answer no, trying to save their job, that will be breaking the law and could mean jail time not just being disbarred which this person if a lawyer, surely will be


Speaking of unprecedented, I just heard a Democrat talking head Jamu Greene, say that if Roe is overturned, it would be "unprecedented". More disinformation from the party that wants to ban disinformation. As I proved in my post above,#74, Separate but Equal was the law of the land for 60 years when it was overturned ( as it should have been least anybody wonders how I felt about that ) by Brown vs Board of Education.


When can we get this Czar of disinformation up and running to tell all these Democrats that they must stop with all this disinformation literally every time they open their mouths on literally any subject. Such hypocrisy!


Funny thing is, if we do get a Ministry of Truth and it worked the way it is intended, to stop false information from being said, what the hell could Democrats say since the majority of what they say is disinformation.


Hunters laptop was a Trump political strategy? Says the Czar of Disinformation? Anybody at the TIMES and POST going to call that out as disinformation since they both have now said it was not Russian propaganda? Naw, didn't think so.

Probably true but the decorum of the court was certainly broken and many say this is unprecedented. But if and when the FBI asks every single person who might have done this and they answer no, trying to save their job, that will be breaking the law and could mean jail time not just being disbarred which this person if a lawyer, surely will be


Speaking of unprecedented, I just heard a Democrat talking head Jamu Greene, say that if Roe is overturned, it would be "unprecedented". More disinformation from the party that wants to ban disinformation. As I proved in my post above, Separate but Equal was the law of the land for 60 years when it was overturned ( as it should have been least anybody wonders how I felt about that ) by Brown vs Board of Education.


When can we get this Czar of disinformation up and running to tell all these Democrats that they must stop with all this disinformation literally every time they open their mouths on literally any subject. Such hypocrisy!


Funny thing is, if we do get a Ministry of Truth and it worked the way it is intended, to stop false information from being said, what the hell could Democrats say since the majority of what they say is disinformation.


Hunters laptop was a Trump political strategy? Says the Czar of Disinformation? Anybody at the TIMES and POST going to call that out as disinformation since they both have now said it was not Russian propaganda? Naw, didn't think so. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

The SCOTUS lost all decorum when it accepted the the alcoholic rapist:




Just had to throw in a stupid "whataboutism" in most of this shit post.

The SCOTUS lost all decorum when it accepted the the alcoholic rapist:

Just had to throw in a stupid "whataboutism" in most of this shit post. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

you know what they say about liars .. they can't keep their story straight.


Christine Blasey Ford's changing Kavanaugh assault story leaves her short on credibility

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/1497661002/


Put aside Christine Blasey Ford's emotional performance. Her testimony revealed her as a witness whose memories change at her convenience.

When Christine Blasey Ford testified last week before the Judiciary Committee, America witnessed a haunted woman recounting a devastating trauma. But putting aside Ford’s emotional performance and focusing instead on the professor’s testimony reveals numerous inconsistencies in her narrative that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.


As a sex-crimes prosecutor, Republican questioner Rachel Mitchell is well-positioned to “know it when she sees it.” But rather than see Ford as a victim of sexual abuse by Kavanaugh, Mitchell saw her as a witness lacking in credibility. And this conclusion comes from an expert who knows that there are many reasons victims delay reporting sexual abuse. Mitchell also recognized that victims may legitimately not remember certain details related to an attack.


But the problem for Ford is not that she doesn’t remember everything: It is that everything she remembers changes at her convenience.


First, Ford’s testimony that the assault occurred in the summer of 1982, when just 15, conflicted with both her therapist’s notes and the text message Ford sent to the Washington Post. According to reporter Emma Brown, Ford claimed she had been assaulted in the mid-1980s; and the therapist’s notes stated Ford had been the victim of an attempted rape in her late teens. But by that time, Kavanaugh was attending Yale, so Ford’s recasting of the attack to the summer of 1982 is suspect.

Remember the Glass House we all live in....

Sounds like no laws were broken....wtf is the problem here? Originally Posted by WTF

laws don't have to be broken. the leaker disclosed confidential information which is a breach of legal ethics for a lawyer and grounds for disbarment.

laws don't have to be broken. the leaker disclosed confidential information which is a breach of legal ethics for a lawyer and grounds for disbarment. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

All true but I want to see this asshole, if proven to have lied to the FBI about this, perp walked down the steps of the SC in handcuffs and put into the back of a brightly marked police unit and sentenced to at the very least, a few months in jail. Then I'd like to see an investigation of the Justice this person worked for to find out if they were "in on it" or not. I wouldn't put it passed Sotomayor to put her seat on the court in jeopardy for abortion, her official religion.

you know what they say about liars .. they can't keep their story straight.





Put aside Christine Blasey Ford's emotional performance. Her testimony revealed her as a witness whose memories change at her convenience. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

You don't have to tell me. I posted that this bitch is a lying cunt like Kavanaugh. You thought I wouldn't have a come back, right?

laws don't have to be broken. the leaker disclosed confidential information which is a breach of legal ethics for a lawyer and grounds for disbarment. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Who gives a fuck... I love whistle blowers!

laws don't have to be broken. the leaker disclosed confidential information which is a breach of legal ethics for a lawyer and grounds for disbarment. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

So how is your favorite Fascist friend?

Who gives a fuck... I love whistle blowers! Originally Posted by WTF

Everyone on this site loves "whistle" blowers.

Everyone on this site loves "whistle" blowers. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Hell I think a few posters in this forum are "Whistle" blowers

KBJ, the new SCOTUS judge must be really confused now. She couldn’t define a women, how can she define a living, human in the womb????????



BAHAHAHAHA Originally Posted by bambino