Is the Supreme Court Seriously Above the Law?
May 14, 2022 09:20:43 #
Is the Supreme Court
by Thom Hartmann | May 12, 2022 - 6:56am
— from The Hartmann Report
Pramila Jayapal and Elizabeth Warren just introduced legislation to impose a code of judicial ethics on the Supreme Court. Today Chuck Schumer is holding a v**e in the Senate to legalize a******n nationwide.
The barrier to either becoming law is the Supreme Court’s own argument that it’s essentially above the law with regard to ethics and that — on constitutional issues — it has final say and can’t be overruled by Congress without a constitutional amendment.
For decades, conservative justices have openly flaunted judicial ethics by participating in politics and taking millions in gifts from billionaires with business before the Court.
And now, for the first time in a big way since its 1896 Plessy v Ferguson “separate but equal” ruling, the Court is preparing to take away a right Americans have taken for granted for generations.
But is the Court really and truly above the law?
Once upon a time now-Chief Justice John Roberts asserted that Congress could pass laws to “regulate” the Supreme Court, limiting and making “exceptions” to what rights and laws they could rule on.
He made the argument as a lawyer for President Reagan, who was looking for ways to reverse Roe v Wade without the consent of the Court, which was then firmly in the camp of it being settled law.
His logic could, today, be used by Congress to pass a law allowing a******n across the nation, and, for good measure, adding a requirement that the Court adhere to the same standards of judicial ethics already set in place for all other federal courts.
How Congress could “court-proof” a******n legislation — and John Roberts’ role in evaluating its possibility — is an amazing and almost entirely unknown story.
The original anti-a******n movement started just before the Civil War, when in 1858 the American Medical Association (AMA) launched a movement to criminalize a******n among white women and place the occasional medically necessary a******n procedure exclusively in the hands of doctors.
In this, the AMA—which was entirely made up of white men at the time, and probably even 100 percent Protestant—was part of a WASP male structure in America that saw their power endangered by a growing population of nonwhite people, combined with a threat to male control from a growing women’s suffrage movement.
As researchers Nicola Beisel and Tamara Kay wrote for a 2004 paper published in the American Sociological Review:
“[T]he nineteenth-century politics of a******n were simultaneously racial and g****r politics. Claims that physicians played on fears of independent women miss what was at stake: Anglo-Saxon control of the state and dominance of society.”
Doing a deep dive into the publications, literature, and history of the anti-a******n movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, they found:
“While laws regulating a******n would ultimately affect all women, physicians argued that middle-class, Anglo-Saxon married women were those obtaining a******ns, and that their use of a******n to curtail childbearing threatened the Anglo-Saxon race.”
They noted that the legally favored “white race” in that era was so tightly defined that it didn’t include Jews or Catholics, and even explicitly defined Celts (mostly Catholic Irish) and Teutons (mostly Germans, many of them Catholic) as “other than white,” and that more than 500,000 “white” men of Anglo-Saxon ancestry had died in the Civil War, giving an instant boost to nonwhite populations.
To help the white population catch up with the nonw****s, the AMA and their w***e s*********t allies succeeded by the 1890s in putting into place laws that forbade a******n in virtually every state (as I documented last week).
The laws were largely ignored in “nonwhite” communities so they could continue to get a******ns, but were rigorously enforced against “white” women.
Beisel and Kay wrote:
“Anglo-Saxon political control in northern cities and states depended on numerical dominance at the polls, which led to concerns about the reproductive prowess of Anglo-Saxon women. In other words, reproduction of an aspect of the racial structure—political dominance—was tied to . . . women’s role as mothers.”
The r****t history of the anti-a******n movement wasn’t lost on Jerry Falwell, who had spent decades since Brown v. Board opening, running, and authorizing w****s-only “Christian” private schools.
One of the most prolific multimillionaire marketers among the evangelical Protestant community, Falwell seems to have realized that being opposed to a******n could be a huge fundraiser and publicity machine for his growing televangelism business.
As a bonus, it dovetailed nicely with the w***e s*********t philosophy that animated his then-all-white school empire.
Merging the two needed a bit of marketing, though, and they needed a high-profile politician to bring this to a national stage. The candidacy of Ronald Reagan in 1980 was their opportunity to make serious political hay.
At the same time, the conservative heavyweight and cofounder of the Heritage Foundation and ALEC, Paul Weyrich, who famously said, “I don’t want everyone to v**e…,” had been arguing for over a year that merging “local control” of schools to keep them all-white with an antia******n message that would preserve white dominance of America only made sense for the Republican Party and the conservative movement.
Initially, the problem was that Reagan, as California governor, had supported and signed the nation’s most liberal law legalizing and making a******n widely available. His vice-p**********l running mate, George H. W. Bush, was an ardent and outspoken supporter of Planned Parenthood.
But Falwell, Weyrich, and others prevailed on Reagan, and when he ran for president in 1980, he flipped positions to support a constitutional amendment to ban a******n nationwide. Bush quietly followed.
Falwell then led a movement of white evangelical preachers (particularly those with a high TV profile) to support Reagan, and, as Stephen P. Miller wrote for Salon in 2014:
“That year [1980] witnessed a conclusive pivot in modern evangelical politics—a pivot, indeed, in the image of American evangelicalism as a whole.”
Referring to Falwell as, by 1979, a political consultant as well as a religious leader, Miller noted:
“During the 1980 campaign, Ronald Reagan and the evangelical conservatives engaged in a very public courting ritual.”
Reagan, of course, had kicked off his 1980 p**********l campaign with a speech about education and states’ rights to an all-white crowd near Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights activists had been murdered just years before.
Willing to say and do wh**ever it took to take the White House, Reagan was the perfect vessel for a w***e s*******y message opposing racial integration, welfare for Black people, and a******n for white women.
Thus, after Reagan’s installation in the White House in January 1981, his Justice Department was hard at work searching for ways to satisfy an explosively growing antia******n movement that was daily being jacked into hysteria by Falwell and his supporters (a process that would soon lead to the first murder of an a******n doctor in the history of the United States).
Reagan’s administration brought together a constellation of conservative white men to change the face of America.
Ted Olson, who later argued Bush v. Gore before the US Supreme Court, led the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. As an assistant attorney general, Olson worked with Counselor to the Attorney General Ken Starr (appointed to that job in 1981), who was later (1989-1993) George H. W. Bush’s solicitor general.
Other new faces Reagan hired into his administration included Samuel Alito and John Roberts.
Starr tasked Roberts, a staunchly antia******n Catholic, with reviewing the entire history of the US Supreme Court for cases that suggested a legislative or administrative way to overturn Roe v. Wade and possibly even Brown v. Board.
Roberts wrote an extraordinary 27-page document that’s almost unknown, in the form of a memo on the letterhead of the Office of the Attorney General to Ken Starr, signed by Roberts as Special Assistant to the Attorney General. It’s titled: “Proposals to Divest the Supreme Court of Appellate Jurisdiction: An Analysis in Light of Recent Developments.”
In it, Roberts proposes using Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution to “regulate” and provide “exceptions” to what the Supreme Court could do by having Congress pass a law reversing Roe v Wade and Brown v Board, saying in the body of that law they could no longer rule on the issues of a******n and racial integration in education because neither is mentioned in the Constitution.
The process he proposed using is called “court stripping,” and involves Congress passing a law saying that Courts can’t rule on the constitutionality of a specific piece of legislation or even broad types of legislation.
(Wonk alert: the next 29 paragraphs summarize Roberts’ arguments; if you’re not interested in the legal details, just scroll down…)
Roberts wrote that he had found in 1981:
“[O]ver twenty bills which would divest the Supreme Court (and, in most instances, lower federal courts as well) of jurisdiction to hear certain types of controversies, ranging from school prayer and desegregation cases to a******n cases.” (parenthesis Roberts’)
What Roberts and his researchers had found could shake the foundations of American jurisprudence, altering the power the Supreme Court seized for itself in Marbury v Madison in 1803.
Court-stripping is based on the Exceptions Clause of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which stipulates that the federal courts may rule “with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Roberts noted eagerly in his memo that:
“[T]he exceptions clause by its terms contains no limit. . . . This clear and unequivocal language is the strongest argument in favor of congressional power and the inevitable stumbling block for those would read the clause in a more restricted fashion.”
Roberts was looking at the nuclear option.
If he could build a strong case for Congress passing a law against a******n (or against racial integration) and persuade Congress to use the Exceptions Clause to render the Supreme Court moot, then this could be the magic bullet to restore segregation and recriminalize a******n!
Roberts concluded with a 1968 comment from Sam Ervin of North Carolina, one of the Senate’s most outspoken opponents of both racial integration and a******n.
He wrote:
“As Senator Ervin noted during hearings on the exceptions clause, ‘I don’t believe that the Founding Fathers could have found any simpler words or plainer words in the English language to say what they said, which is that the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is dependent entirely upon the will of Congress.’”
Roberts continued, in agreement with Ervin:
“[W]e are not considering a constitutional clause that is by its nature indeterminate and incapable of precise or fixed meaning, such as the due process clause or the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.”
This was clearly the original intent, Roberts argued, because, he wrote:
“[T]he exceptions clause ‘was not debated’ by the Committee of Detail which drafted it, or the whole Convention.”
Citing the Federalist, no. 81, Roberts wrote:
“Hamilton noted that the clause would enable ‘the government to modify [courts’ jurisdiction] in such a manner as will best answer the ends of public justice and security,’ and that appellate jurisdiction was ‘subject to any exceptions and regulations which may be thought advisable.’”
Section III of Roberts’s screed on court-stripping dives deep into Supreme Court decisions to find rulings explicitly saying that Congress can regulate the Supreme Court and block the Court from ruling on particular issues.
Beginning with the 1869 decision Ex parte McCardle, Roberts wrote:
“A unanimous Court upheld the power of Congress to divest the Supreme Court of jurisdiction. The Court clearly based its decision on Congress’ power under the exceptions clause. Chief Justice Chase began the opinion by recognizing that the appellate jurisdiction of the Court ‘is conferred “with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make.”’”
Quoting Chase again, Roberts added his own emphasis:
“We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution; and the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court is given by express words.” [emphasis Roberts’]
He continued his historical exposé of court-stripping with another 1869 decision, Ex parte Yerger, and then United States v. Klein (1872), Wiscart v. Dauchy (1796), Durousseau v. United States (1810), Daniels v. Railroad (1865), and The Francis Wright (1881).
In The Francis Wright, Roberts found that Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite (whose Court oversaw the infamous 1886 “corporate personhood” Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case) wrote for a unanimous Court, quoting him as follows:
“Not only may whole classes of cases be kept out of the [Supreme Court’s] jurisdiction altogether, but particular classes of questions may be subjected to re-examination and review, while others are not.”
Each case strengthened the idea that Congress could simply pass a law, without even needing a super-majority, that barred the Supreme Court from ruling on a set of issues—like Reagan’s hot-button issues of school desegregation and a******n.
Moving toward late-19th-century decisions, Roberts quoted the Court in Colorado Central Consolidated Mining Co. v. Turck (1893):
“[I]t has been held in an uninterrupted series of decisions that this Court exercises appellate jurisdiction only in accordance with the acts of Congress upon the subject.”
Roberts, in his own voice, added:
“Again, it bears emphasis that the basis for this theory is the implicit exercise by Congress of its exceptions power when it makes a limited grant of jurisdiction.”
Still building his case, Roberts jumped into 20th-century rulings, starting with National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater T***sfer Co. (1948). Writing for the majority, Justice Felix Frankfurter noted in the decision:
“Congress need not give this Court any appellate power; it may withdraw appellate jurisdiction once conferred and it may do so even while a case is sub judice.”
About the 1944 Yakus v. United States case, Roberts wrote:
“Justice Rutledge noted … that ‘Congress has plenary power to confer or withhold jurisdiction.’”
by Thom Hartmann | May 12, 2022 - 6:56am
— from The Hartmann Report
Pramila Jayapal and Elizabeth Warren just introduced legislation to impose a code of judicial ethics on the Supreme Court. Today Chuck Schumer is holding a v**e in the Senate to legalize a******n nationwide.
The barrier to either becoming law is the Supreme Court’s own argument that it’s essentially above the law with regard to ethics and that — on constitutional issues — it has final say and can’t be overruled by Congress without a constitutional amendment.
For decades, conservative justices have openly flaunted judicial ethics by participating in politics and taking millions in gifts from billionaires with business before the Court.
And now, for the first time in a big way since its 1896 Plessy v Ferguson “separate but equal” ruling, the Court is preparing to take away a right Americans have taken for granted for generations.
But is the Court really and truly above the law?
Once upon a time now-Chief Justice John Roberts asserted that Congress could pass laws to “regulate” the Supreme Court, limiting and making “exceptions” to what rights and laws they could rule on.
He made the argument as a lawyer for President Reagan, who was looking for ways to reverse Roe v Wade without the consent of the Court, which was then firmly in the camp of it being settled law.
His logic could, today, be used by Congress to pass a law allowing a******n across the nation, and, for good measure, adding a requirement that the Court adhere to the same standards of judicial ethics already set in place for all other federal courts.
How Congress could “court-proof” a******n legislation — and John Roberts’ role in evaluating its possibility — is an amazing and almost entirely unknown story.
The original anti-a******n movement started just before the Civil War, when in 1858 the American Medical Association (AMA) launched a movement to criminalize a******n among white women and place the occasional medically necessary a******n procedure exclusively in the hands of doctors.
In this, the AMA—which was entirely made up of white men at the time, and probably even 100 percent Protestant—was part of a WASP male structure in America that saw their power endangered by a growing population of nonwhite people, combined with a threat to male control from a growing women’s suffrage movement.
As researchers Nicola Beisel and Tamara Kay wrote for a 2004 paper published in the American Sociological Review:
“[T]he nineteenth-century politics of a******n were simultaneously racial and g****r politics. Claims that physicians played on fears of independent women miss what was at stake: Anglo-Saxon control of the state and dominance of society.”
Doing a deep dive into the publications, literature, and history of the anti-a******n movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, they found:
“While laws regulating a******n would ultimately affect all women, physicians argued that middle-class, Anglo-Saxon married women were those obtaining a******ns, and that their use of a******n to curtail childbearing threatened the Anglo-Saxon race.”
They noted that the legally favored “white race” in that era was so tightly defined that it didn’t include Jews or Catholics, and even explicitly defined Celts (mostly Catholic Irish) and Teutons (mostly Germans, many of them Catholic) as “other than white,” and that more than 500,000 “white” men of Anglo-Saxon ancestry had died in the Civil War, giving an instant boost to nonwhite populations.
To help the white population catch up with the nonw****s, the AMA and their w***e s*********t allies succeeded by the 1890s in putting into place laws that forbade a******n in virtually every state (as I documented last week).
The laws were largely ignored in “nonwhite” communities so they could continue to get a******ns, but were rigorously enforced against “white” women.
Beisel and Kay wrote:
“Anglo-Saxon political control in northern cities and states depended on numerical dominance at the polls, which led to concerns about the reproductive prowess of Anglo-Saxon women. In other words, reproduction of an aspect of the racial structure—political dominance—was tied to . . . women’s role as mothers.”
The r****t history of the anti-a******n movement wasn’t lost on Jerry Falwell, who had spent decades since Brown v. Board opening, running, and authorizing w****s-only “Christian” private schools.
One of the most prolific multimillionaire marketers among the evangelical Protestant community, Falwell seems to have realized that being opposed to a******n could be a huge fundraiser and publicity machine for his growing televangelism business.
As a bonus, it dovetailed nicely with the w***e s*********t philosophy that animated his then-all-white school empire.
Merging the two needed a bit of marketing, though, and they needed a high-profile politician to bring this to a national stage. The candidacy of Ronald Reagan in 1980 was their opportunity to make serious political hay.
At the same time, the conservative heavyweight and cofounder of the Heritage Foundation and ALEC, Paul Weyrich, who famously said, “I don’t want everyone to v**e…,” had been arguing for over a year that merging “local control” of schools to keep them all-white with an antia******n message that would preserve white dominance of America only made sense for the Republican Party and the conservative movement.
Initially, the problem was that Reagan, as California governor, had supported and signed the nation’s most liberal law legalizing and making a******n widely available. His vice-p**********l running mate, George H. W. Bush, was an ardent and outspoken supporter of Planned Parenthood.
But Falwell, Weyrich, and others prevailed on Reagan, and when he ran for president in 1980, he flipped positions to support a constitutional amendment to ban a******n nationwide. Bush quietly followed.
Falwell then led a movement of white evangelical preachers (particularly those with a high TV profile) to support Reagan, and, as Stephen P. Miller wrote for Salon in 2014:
“That year [1980] witnessed a conclusive pivot in modern evangelical politics—a pivot, indeed, in the image of American evangelicalism as a whole.”
Referring to Falwell as, by 1979, a political consultant as well as a religious leader, Miller noted:
“During the 1980 campaign, Ronald Reagan and the evangelical conservatives engaged in a very public courting ritual.”
Reagan, of course, had kicked off his 1980 p**********l campaign with a speech about education and states’ rights to an all-white crowd near Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights activists had been murdered just years before.
Willing to say and do wh**ever it took to take the White House, Reagan was the perfect vessel for a w***e s*******y message opposing racial integration, welfare for Black people, and a******n for white women.
Thus, after Reagan’s installation in the White House in January 1981, his Justice Department was hard at work searching for ways to satisfy an explosively growing antia******n movement that was daily being jacked into hysteria by Falwell and his supporters (a process that would soon lead to the first murder of an a******n doctor in the history of the United States).
Reagan’s administration brought together a constellation of conservative white men to change the face of America.
Ted Olson, who later argued Bush v. Gore before the US Supreme Court, led the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. As an assistant attorney general, Olson worked with Counselor to the Attorney General Ken Starr (appointed to that job in 1981), who was later (1989-1993) George H. W. Bush’s solicitor general.
Other new faces Reagan hired into his administration included Samuel Alito and John Roberts.
Starr tasked Roberts, a staunchly antia******n Catholic, with reviewing the entire history of the US Supreme Court for cases that suggested a legislative or administrative way to overturn Roe v. Wade and possibly even Brown v. Board.
Roberts wrote an extraordinary 27-page document that’s almost unknown, in the form of a memo on the letterhead of the Office of the Attorney General to Ken Starr, signed by Roberts as Special Assistant to the Attorney General. It’s titled: “Proposals to Divest the Supreme Court of Appellate Jurisdiction: An Analysis in Light of Recent Developments.”
In it, Roberts proposes using Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution to “regulate” and provide “exceptions” to what the Supreme Court could do by having Congress pass a law reversing Roe v Wade and Brown v Board, saying in the body of that law they could no longer rule on the issues of a******n and racial integration in education because neither is mentioned in the Constitution.
The process he proposed using is called “court stripping,” and involves Congress passing a law saying that Courts can’t rule on the constitutionality of a specific piece of legislation or even broad types of legislation.
(Wonk alert: the next 29 paragraphs summarize Roberts’ arguments; if you’re not interested in the legal details, just scroll down…)
Roberts wrote that he had found in 1981:
“[O]ver twenty bills which would divest the Supreme Court (and, in most instances, lower federal courts as well) of jurisdiction to hear certain types of controversies, ranging from school prayer and desegregation cases to a******n cases.” (parenthesis Roberts’)
What Roberts and his researchers had found could shake the foundations of American jurisprudence, altering the power the Supreme Court seized for itself in Marbury v Madison in 1803.
Court-stripping is based on the Exceptions Clause of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which stipulates that the federal courts may rule “with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Roberts noted eagerly in his memo that:
“[T]he exceptions clause by its terms contains no limit. . . . This clear and unequivocal language is the strongest argument in favor of congressional power and the inevitable stumbling block for those would read the clause in a more restricted fashion.”
Roberts was looking at the nuclear option.
If he could build a strong case for Congress passing a law against a******n (or against racial integration) and persuade Congress to use the Exceptions Clause to render the Supreme Court moot, then this could be the magic bullet to restore segregation and recriminalize a******n!
Roberts concluded with a 1968 comment from Sam Ervin of North Carolina, one of the Senate’s most outspoken opponents of both racial integration and a******n.
He wrote:
“As Senator Ervin noted during hearings on the exceptions clause, ‘I don’t believe that the Founding Fathers could have found any simpler words or plainer words in the English language to say what they said, which is that the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is dependent entirely upon the will of Congress.’”
Roberts continued, in agreement with Ervin:
“[W]e are not considering a constitutional clause that is by its nature indeterminate and incapable of precise or fixed meaning, such as the due process clause or the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.”
This was clearly the original intent, Roberts argued, because, he wrote:
“[T]he exceptions clause ‘was not debated’ by the Committee of Detail which drafted it, or the whole Convention.”
Citing the Federalist, no. 81, Roberts wrote:
“Hamilton noted that the clause would enable ‘the government to modify [courts’ jurisdiction] in such a manner as will best answer the ends of public justice and security,’ and that appellate jurisdiction was ‘subject to any exceptions and regulations which may be thought advisable.’”
Section III of Roberts’s screed on court-stripping dives deep into Supreme Court decisions to find rulings explicitly saying that Congress can regulate the Supreme Court and block the Court from ruling on particular issues.
Beginning with the 1869 decision Ex parte McCardle, Roberts wrote:
“A unanimous Court upheld the power of Congress to divest the Supreme Court of jurisdiction. The Court clearly based its decision on Congress’ power under the exceptions clause. Chief Justice Chase began the opinion by recognizing that the appellate jurisdiction of the Court ‘is conferred “with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make.”’”
Quoting Chase again, Roberts added his own emphasis:
“We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution; and the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court is given by express words.” [emphasis Roberts’]
He continued his historical exposé of court-stripping with another 1869 decision, Ex parte Yerger, and then United States v. Klein (1872), Wiscart v. Dauchy (1796), Durousseau v. United States (1810), Daniels v. Railroad (1865), and The Francis Wright (1881).
In The Francis Wright, Roberts found that Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite (whose Court oversaw the infamous 1886 “corporate personhood” Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case) wrote for a unanimous Court, quoting him as follows:
“Not only may whole classes of cases be kept out of the [Supreme Court’s] jurisdiction altogether, but particular classes of questions may be subjected to re-examination and review, while others are not.”
Each case strengthened the idea that Congress could simply pass a law, without even needing a super-majority, that barred the Supreme Court from ruling on a set of issues—like Reagan’s hot-button issues of school desegregation and a******n.
Moving toward late-19th-century decisions, Roberts quoted the Court in Colorado Central Consolidated Mining Co. v. Turck (1893):
“[I]t has been held in an uninterrupted series of decisions that this Court exercises appellate jurisdiction only in accordance with the acts of Congress upon the subject.”
Roberts, in his own voice, added:
“Again, it bears emphasis that the basis for this theory is the implicit exercise by Congress of its exceptions power when it makes a limited grant of jurisdiction.”
Still building his case, Roberts jumped into 20th-century rulings, starting with National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater T***sfer Co. (1948). Writing for the majority, Justice Felix Frankfurter noted in the decision:
“Congress need not give this Court any appellate power; it may withdraw appellate jurisdiction once conferred and it may do so even while a case is sub judice.”
About the 1944 Yakus v. United States case, Roberts wrote:
“Justice Rutledge noted … that ‘Congress has plenary power to confer or withhold jurisdiction.’”
May 14, 2022 09:27:01 #
May 14, 2022 09:38:24 #
Bevvy wrote:
The r****t , evil history of the a******nists can spin up a story
Womens Rights Advocates go Way Back .
It was never about a******n.
It was about Womens Rights.
And this still stands today where Men are trying to take away womens rights.
5 Men actually .
5 rogue judges introducing Sharia Law onto this country .
Welcome to the Taliban Supreme Court !
All by themselves .
Is this how a Democracy is run ?
Or have we crossed some bridge we didn’t know about ???
May 14, 2022 09:42:52 #
Milosia2 wrote:
Womens Rights Advocates go Way Back .
It was never about a******n.
It was about Womens Rights.
And this still stands today where Men are trying to take away womens rights.
5 Men actually .
5 rogue judges introducing Sharia Law onto this country .
Welcome to the Taliban Supreme Court !
All by themselves .
Is this how a Democracy is run ?
Or have we crossed some bridge we didn’t know about ???
It was never about a******n.
It was about Womens Rights.
And this still stands today where Men are trying to take away womens rights.
5 Men actually .
5 rogue judges introducing Sharia Law onto this country .
Welcome to the Taliban Supreme Court !
All by themselves .
Is this how a Democracy is run ?
Or have we crossed some bridge we didn’t know about ???
No one , nobody , not one person , no individual ( with one exception ) is trying to take any right from anyone ... the only exception is the far left
May 14, 2022 09:55:09 #
Babies are human beings beginning at conception. Unless they are pronounced dead in the womb by a doctor because of accidental circumstances, the baby must not be aborted by the "baby k**lers." Our American Constitution, defined in its original intent, embraces this as "absolute."
May 14, 2022 10:03:15 #
Strycker
Loc: The middle of somewhere else.
The whole argument falls apart because it ignores the 10th Amendment. The 10th Amendment states that any powers that the Constitution does not give to the federal government are the responsibility of the states themselves. The very reason the article states that congress can limit what the court can rule on because it is not addressed in the Constitution puts the same limits baring Congress to legislate on.
May 14, 2022 10:08:58 #
Now we know where you stand; in favor of Schmuck Schumer's federalization of an a******n law that legalizes a******n up until the actual birth of the fetus. So you finally admit you agree with murdering an unborn infant who is perfectly capable of surviving outside the womb with no special care, if it's an inconvenience to the mother.
The only a******n law I support is one that would make retroactive a******ns for people like you legal. (This includes the 49 Senate Democrats who v**ed to murder children a day before they are born.) I would not call people who support this inhuman monsters, because inhuman monsters have standards you seem incapable of living up to.
Dios nos ayude.
The only a******n law I support is one that would make retroactive a******ns for people like you legal. (This includes the 49 Senate Democrats who v**ed to murder children a day before they are born.) I would not call people who support this inhuman monsters, because inhuman monsters have standards you seem incapable of living up to.
Dios nos ayude.
May 14, 2022 10:36:07 #
Strycker wrote:
The whole argument falls apart because it ignores the 10th Amendment. The 10th Amendment states that any powers that the Constitution does not give to the federal government are the responsibility of the states themselves. The very reason the article states that congress can limit what the court can rule on because it is not addressed in the Constitution puts the same limits baring Congress to legislate on.
Democrats think the Congress they control is above the Constitution.
May 14, 2022 10:40:03 #
microphor
Loc: Home is TN
Milosia2 wrote:
Womens Rights Advocates go Way Back .
It was never about a******n.
It was about Womens Rights.
And this still stands today where Men are trying to take away womens rights.
5 Men actually .
5 rogue judges introducing Sharia Law onto this country .
Welcome to the Taliban Supreme Court !
All by themselves .
Is this how a Democracy is run ?
Or have we crossed some bridge we didn’t know about ???
It was never about a******n.
It was about Womens Rights.
And this still stands today where Men are trying to take away womens rights.
5 Men actually .
5 rogue judges introducing Sharia Law onto this country .
Welcome to the Taliban Supreme Court !
All by themselves .
Is this how a Democracy is run ?
Or have we crossed some bridge we didn’t know about ???
"Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – v**ed with Alito in the conference held among the justices, the article added."
Amy is not a man, nor is she t***s. This has nothing to do with Sharia Law, it is recommending that the matter be sent back to the states i.e the people to decide in each state. You would know this if your read the draft. "That's draft" as in "not final"!
May 14, 2022 10:49:43 #
JFlorio
Loc: Seminole Florida
Smedley_buzk**l wrote:
Now we know where you stand; in favor of Schmuck S... (show quote)
Smedley, you always impress me. I'm especially impressed that you bothered to read that i***tic post. Why don't they come out and admit exactly what you pointed out? It's not like we could see them as any stupider.
May 14, 2022 10:53:53 #
Milosia2 wrote:
Womens Rights Advocates go Way Back .
It was never about a******n.
It was about Womens Rights.
And this still stands today where Men are trying to take away womens rights.
5 Men actually .
5 rogue judges introducing Sharia Law onto this country .
Welcome to the Taliban Supreme Court !
All by themselves .
Is this how a Democracy is run ?
Or have we crossed some bridge we didn’t know about ???
It was never about a******n.
It was about Womens Rights.
And this still stands today where Men are trying to take away womens rights.
5 Men actually .
5 rogue judges introducing Sharia Law onto this country .
Welcome to the Taliban Supreme Court !
All by themselves .
Is this how a Democracy is run ?
Or have we crossed some bridge we didn’t know about ???
Do you support the most evil r****m towards B****s?
Then you need to learn about the mission and agenda of Margaret Sanger. A******n clinics began as an effort to eradicate B***k A******ns and wrapped with a pretty bow as women's rights that was nothing more than wordsmithing for the public eye, so that there could be a continuing effort to eradicate Black's. To this day a majority of clinics are in Black population centers...Which is the exact location all a******n clinics first began.
Clearly the motive and intent of a******n clinics had zero to do with "helping women " and to this day the lie and propaganda that these clinics are for "Women's health" and address health issues outside of a******n when over 90 % of their function is a******ns. It wasn't until a******ns became more widely used by "white women " seeking a way out of an unwanted pregnancy " that the left began a campaign of "women's rights" instead of using contraceptives and stop spreading their legs unprotected.
I doubt a******n clinics would receive little attention if morality and /or the sexual active used protection. Instead the a******n numbers in the millions which undermines any attempt to argue a******n is not an alternative to using contraception.
To this day the agenda of Margaret's absolute h**e and the deepest r****t despise towards the Black's is still alive.
To know and understand how and why a******n clinics in America began and to this day majority of a******ns ate within the Black population is to support the most evil r****m towards B****s
May 14, 2022 11:04:47 #
JFlorio
Loc: Seminole Florida
jack sequim wa wrote:
Do you support the most evil r****m towards B****s... (show quote)
Progressives are either the stupidest lemmings on earth or the evilest. Possibly both. Black women make up about 6.7% of the U.S. population. They have about 36% of all a******ns in the U.S.. Sanger would be proud.
May 14, 2022 17:29:14 #
LogicallyRight
Loc: Chicago
Milosia2 wrote:
Womens Rights Advocates go Way Back .
It was never about a******n.
It was about Womens Rights.
And this still stands today where Men are trying to take away womens rights.
5 Men actually .
5 rogue judges introducing Sharia Law onto this country .
Welcome to the Taliban Supreme Court !
All by themselves .
Is this how a Democracy is run ?
Or have we crossed some bridge we didn’t know about ???
It was never about a******n.
It was about Womens Rights.
And this still stands today where Men are trying to take away womens rights.
5 Men actually .
5 rogue judges introducing Sharia Law onto this country .
Welcome to the Taliban Supreme Court !
All by themselves .
Is this how a Democracy is run ?
Or have we crossed some bridge we didn’t know about ???
But ewe had no problem with six men ruling that ewe could commit murder.
What a character, And ewe are still using stupid people to back up the stupid ideas ewe come up with.
May 14, 2022 17:36:38 #
JFlorio
Loc: Seminole Florida
LogicallyRight wrote:
But ewe had no problem with six men ruling that ewe could commit murder.
What a character, And ewe are still using stupid people to back up the stupid ideas ewe come up with.
What a character, And ewe are still using stupid people to back up the stupid ideas ewe come up with.
Birds of a feather.
May 14, 2022 17:46:36 #
Bevvy wrote:
The r****t , evil history of the a******nists can spin up a story
The cognitively impaired right has no ability to follow a fascinating legal process.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.