Defang The Supreme Court -- Constitutionally
Let's begin with a big "Happy Independence Day, everyone!"
This July Fourth it is tempting for progressives and all others who care about basic human rights to want to declare independence from the Supreme Court. Packed with radicals, it has begun what could be a terrifying reign over American life for decades to come. Who knows what laws they will target next? The basic understanding that whichever candidate gets the most votes wins an election, perhaps? The possibilities are frightening.
But there is a way to completely defang the Supreme Court, and one that would be far easier to accomplish than, say, increasing the membership of the court. "Court-packing" has all kinds of historical baggage, and to flip the court Democrats would have to appoint four more justices -- which would seem like too radical a step for many. But there's another way Congress could completely strip the court of the power of interfering with basic human rights, and it is built right in to the Constitution itself.
I came across this idea in a very thorough article in Politico, which examines two interesting ideas. The first is absolutely hilarious to consider -- what if someone were to bring a case challenging the constitutionality of Marbury v. Madison? This was the greatest power grab in the history of our country, and concerned the very first "peaceful transfer of power," after the presidential election of 1800. By then, John Adams had replaced George Washington, but they were from the same political party (or "faction" as they called it back then) -- the Federalists (the real ones, not their misguided namesakes of today). The Anti-Federalists finally got their turn at bat with the election of Thomas Jefferson. But on the way out, Madison made some last-minute (or "midnight") appointments. The details of the case and its outcome are kind of immaterial, though, because in the decision the court announced was, in essence: "Oh, by the way, we now have the power to interpret the constitutionality of laws Congress passes and the president signs." That concept is not in the Constitution itself. They created it out of thin air.
Since the radicals on the court all pledge fealty to the "original intent" of the Constitution -- declaring themselves the sole arbiters of what the Founding Fathers felt about any issue today -- then a case could certainly be made that the Supreme Court of today does not have the power to throw out laws they believe are unconstitutional according to "original intent," because by that same original intent, the court was never given that power. Instead of just a pre-Roe country, we'd all be transported back to a pre-Marbury country. It'd be a real Catch-22 of a case, you've got to admit. With one decision, the court would cease to have the power to declare anything unconstitutional at all! After all, according to original intent, it never had that power in the first place.
Like I said, this is pretty amusing to contemplate. But it's also pretty far-fetched. The court and all those who support it always seem to find enough "original intent" to support exactly what the Republican Party supports, no matter the issue or what was actually said about it back in the 1780s. So it would not be very likely that they'd completely jettison their own power (by overturning the Supreme Court decision of 1803 which created that power).
But the other idea the Politico article examines is a much more interesting one. It'd be far less contentious than packing the court, and far more likely to happen than the court spontaneously defanging themselves. After a brief discussion of court-packing, the article lays the idea out (emphasis in original):
Critically, but less widely understood, the Constitution also grants Congress the power to strip the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over specific matters. Article III, Section 2 reads: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
At least one founder was clear about the intent of Section 2. [Alexander] Hamilton wrote [in The Federalist Papers], "From this review of the particular powers of the federal judiciary, as marked out in the Constitution, it appears that they are all conformable to the principles which ought to have governed the structure of that department, and which were necessary to the perfection of the system. If some partial inconveniences should appear to be connected with the incorporation of any of them into the plan, it ought to be recollected that the national legislature will have ample authority to make such exceptions, and to prescribe such regulations as will be calculated to obviate or remove these inconveniences."
Got that? Congress can tie the hands of the Supreme Court on any law it passes, just by adding a clause at the bottom which states unequivocally that the courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever over this new law. Problem solved, in one elegant step.
Of course, this wouldn't protect any previous law which was passed without such a rider at the end. But that doesn't mean previous laws can't be easily excepted from Supreme Court review by passing another law which merely states "the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (or whatever other previous law) is hereby exempt from the federal judiciary's jurisdiction."
This is a stunning power, you've got to admit. And rarely-used. But that doesn't make it any less part of the Constitution. It is an easily-available power Congress could utilize.
Of course, to do so would mean attaching it to a budget bill, because with Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema adamant about keeping the filibuster, that'd be the only way to do it. But exempting a wide swath of laws from judicial review would impact the whole judiciary's budget in some form, one would certainly think.
Then there's the question of should we do this -- a political question. It would move the country into a new era of government, since bad laws could certainly pass with exemptions to the courts' jurisdiction. If Republicans ever got control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, they could pass all sorts of frightening laws and exempt them all from court review. Democrats would only be able to overturn those laws by winning back the whole trifecta themselves and then passing updated laws. So there are enormous risks, right?
Well, maybe not so much. How would that be all that different from what we have now, other than the fact that Democrats would occasionally be able to pass their own agenda without worrying about the radicals on the Supreme Court? Right now, we occasionally get Republicans passing bad laws. They are challenged in court. No matter what the lower courts decide, eventually they get to the Supreme Court. Who will consistently rule in favor of the Republican agenda and do as much as they can to dismantle the Democratic agenda (all the way back to F.D.R.'s time).
The game is now stacked against Democrats. And it will be for a long time to come. They are just getting started. We could experience an entire generation's worth of time under a court that by one measure is more conservative than any court since the 1930s. But just as fast as they strike down laws they don't like, if Democrats controlled Congress and the presidency, they could just re-pass the same (or similar) laws, with a clause at the end which declares them beyond the reach of the courts. Checks and balances, just like the Founding Fathers intended.
So those are the words from the United States Constitution that I am dwelling upon, this July Fourth:
...with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
It's a beautiful phrase, really.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
” Court-packing" has all kinds of historical baggage, and to flip the court Democrats would have to appoint four more justices -- which would seem like too radical a step for many.
There are 13 judicial districts in the US.. there should be 13 Supreme Court Justices — each with their own district to manage. How “radical” is that?
Great article, CW! Gotta admit that I was unaware of this part of our Constitution. Very informative!
When it comes to whether to use this or not..lI agree with you that Democrats have nothing to lose by trying it out!
nothing to lose that wouldn't be lost anyway.
Listen [1]
While it's not going to happen anytime soon, if adding seats to SCOTUS ever happens, 15, not 13 is the right number.
With 13, the GOP (when in power adds 2-4). 15, on the other hand is magic in that it's the absolute border of wieldy.
More than that and you have 3-judge panels hearing cases with only a handful getting an en banc hearing from the full court.
With one decision, the court would cease to have the power to declare anything unconstitutional at all! After all, according to original intent, it never had that power in the first place.
Would that be like saying there is, indeed, a right to privacy that the people of the United States of America never delegated to anybody but themselves?
And, therefore, the Court has no say, whatsoever, on whether a woman may have an abortion. In other words, the decision by a woman to have an abortion would be a decision in the hands of a woman, primarily, and her doctor with all of the inherent restrictions applicable based solely on medical practice and advice, not the law or the Constitution. Abortion would cease to be a legal issue!
I'm not thinking straight right now ... dead tired, so ... is my line of reasoning here sound?
Of course, if SCOTUS doesn't have the power to deem any law unconstitutional, then that opens up a whole other can of worms, allowing Congress to pass any old law it wanted.
That doesn't make any sense! In fact, that is downright terrifying. Or, it would be if I were an American.
I guess codifying a woman's reproductive rights and autonomy over her own body is the only practical way to go then, right?
Then there's the question of should we do this -- a political question. It would move the country into a new era of government, since bad laws could certainly pass with exemptions to the courts' jurisdiction.
Actually, bad idea. Since Democrats are notoriously bad at reversing anything bad that Republican pass and at persuading voters to vote in their best interests ...
Joshua,
nothing to lose that wouldn't be lost anyway.
Indeed.
I love this idea for the same reason I want to dump the filibuster (also not Constitutional.)
Let the Dems enact legislation that the majority of Americans want when they have power. Then we all see how their policies work out.
Let the Repugs have the exact same ability to enact legislation that the majority of voters oppose Then we see how the policies work out. Try them both.
Either way our Government can get things done.
Er, not yours, Liz.
BUT any and every Biden Groupie just has to be at least an Honorable Murican! :D
I say we make Liz an HA on our 246th birthday as Murica! Guys? Gals?
Oh, can anyone tell me why women's uteruses aren't protected by the 4th Amendment?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
I must have missed the rebuttal. Help me out, Michale!
I'd hate to think that your hatred of all things Liberal was more important than our Constitution, right?
MC, wasn't it you that said "Don't feed the troll" over the weekend?
I didn't respond to his answers the third time b/c I was bored by his tired responses.
Nonetheless, you? ...
Caddy is a generous spirit, at heart ...
[13]
After nypoet22 wrote:
@caddy,
m will be a part of this community as long as both he and CW consent to that state, so until and unless that changes, kindly quit whining about it. don was legitimately deranged (and extremely disrespectful of pie), m just has a very different worldview than we do. i'd strongly advise you to read the george packer article. ...
And someone raise the subject of@m paying @CW by the comment (or column yard -- why else would CW let him hurt Weigantia?) ...
So I figured that it's no use.
Whatever. I prefer Kick to do the kicking around function because she's so good at it. But I can weigh in ... bitch as I see fit ... and otherwise perform the scrolling function.
Hmmm ... perhaps I should take that back.
I am a generous spirit, Liz. To start the year I just habitually scrolled through every last bit of the spew,
for a couple of months. I was sad to see y'all get sucked into this poor boy's world and in a spirit of generosity I decided to try to reach out so as to get him to be ofsome damned use. But I don't think he has it in him and I don't think he's a generous spirit, either.
I say this after chewing over [50] and then reading the rest of the comments.
FPC_50
..m just has a very different worldview than we do. i'd strongly advise you to read the george packer article.
I want a different viewpoint as well. A real one that can do better than dismiss, distract, deflect and deny when the hard questions are put to them. With enough respect to not post endless and obvious nonsense, insult and put words in our and real (and imaginary Democrat's mouths.) Besides THAT, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? Ahem.
Do we deserve anything less?
BTW I read the Packer article when it was published (I subscribe) and again recently and I agree with George.
Why, here are a couple examples I copied:
FPC_78
fertilized egg = baby.
You are wrong about it..
I have stated my position on that issue quite clearly on several occasions..
And you are definitely wrong about it.. :D
Are you going to stand on that assertion, or provide some clarification or nuance?
I have done on many occasions and don't really like to repeat myself..
FPC_146
But even if you could get that job, you didn’t do it for 30+ yrs. Please, share with us what you learned from your make believe career!
My military and LEO and FSO and Security bona fides have been well established.. Long before you polluted Weigantian with your Trump/America hate and your PTDS…
How is this "too bad I told you already" dodge anything but a more sophisticated version of Don...with the same end result?
Hiya Liz!
No. I put a lot of thought into this so please tell me where my criticism is off. What am I wrong about?
Here's Didn't Leave Nobody but the Baby (1:57) to lull you to sleep, my Darling.
Drank coffee too late in the day, like me?
Now that you think about it, isn't the 1803 SCOTUS declaring itself the arbiter of what's Constitutional when such a thing is not in our Constitution ...
Roughly the same as,
The 1870 Pope Pius IX declaring himself infallible when such a thing is not in the Bible?
(Full disclosure: I'm a recovering Catholic.)
Russ,
Blame Rudy for that. They refused to turn over copies of the hard drives for the media to review for themselves until well after the election.
Not factually accurate..
The copies of the hard drive were out there for all to examine.. Because the NY POST had the copies..
But the Democrat Media buried the story..
Thank you for finally admitting that Trump did in fact LOSE the election.
Of course President Trump did lose the election.. Due to the fraud and cheating of the Democrats..
Haven't you been listening??
Russ,
So the death penalty for those who took part in the failed insurrection on Jan.6?
For the one's who assaulted cops??
Abso-frakin'-loutly...
For the ones who were being taken on a tour of the capitol BY cops??? Or the ones who were let into the capitol BY cops???
Not so much.. :eyeroll:
Assault doesn't deserve death, in my opinion;
Assault on a police officer does, in my opinion...
Because assault on a police officer is an assault on society..
Surprised you'd take such a strong stance against the failed insurrectionists, but so be it.
Why would you be surprised??
Unlike you, I am unwavering and totally consistent in my support of LEOs...
You support the Party that hates cops.. You support the Party that kills cops..
Bashi,
Ah, yes pawning off a pathetic attempt to manufacture an October surprise and conspiracy theories based on Zuckerberg's donations neither with ANY back up does not a fact make no matter how many times you repeat the word...
Bashi being Bashi.. :D
The facts of the ZuckerBucks and their effect has been widely documented as fact..
Not the list of which is Zuck's announcement to Democrats that they can't count of a repeat to win the 2022 mid-terms..
JL,
anxiously awaiting CW's july 4th column. hopefully he'll have the time available to write something as epic as the occasion calls for.
Apparently... NOT... The moderator's commentary is all about an insurrection against 1/3rd of this country's government..
It's an appropriate PTDS-induced Democrat response to 4 July... :eyeroll:
Liz,
That's some pretty magical thinking there ... where's your proof?
Media’s suppression of Hunter Biden’s laptop was election interference
Had Biden voters known of scandal, election would've tipped to Trump
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/mar/24/medias-suppression-of-hunter-laptop-was-election-i/
Not that I expect you to even bother reading the link..
"There are none so blind as those who will not see"
Russ,
There are 13 judicial districts in the US.. there should be 13 Supreme Court Justices — each with their own district to manage. How “radical” is that?
OK.. Fine... Tell ya what..
I will support your SCOTUS packing to the HILT...
In 2025 when President Trump is back in the oval office and the GOP owns Congress...
If you still want to pack the court then, then I will support you..
But I somehow get the feeling that you won't be interested in packing the SCOTUS then, eh?? :D
Which simply proves it's nothing but your anti-America Democrat political agenda..
Liz,
And, therefore, the Court has no say, whatsoever, on whether a woman may have an abortion.
NOW yer getting it!
Congrats.. You finally realized what I have been saying all along..
The current SCOTUS did EXACTLY what you said right their..
The current SCOTUS agreed with you, that they have absolutely NO SAY in whether a woman can kill her baby or not..
So, your beef is with the SCOTUS who decided Roe v Wade and the SCOTUS who decided Democrat Eugenics v Casey...
*THEY* were the ones who insinuated themselves into the issue.. *THEY* were the ones who said that the SCOTUS DOES have a say in whether a woman can kill her baby or not..
This current SCOTUS did EXACTLY what you just stated there..
This current SCOTUS said, JUST like you said, that this Court has no business being involved in that decision..
So, we agree that baby killing AKA abortion should have restrictions..
AND
And we agree that the Court should have never had a say in the decision at all..
Complete 1000% agreement on the baby killing issue..
I love it!! :D
MC
I must have missed the rebuttal. Help me out, Michale!
I'll be happy to help you out..
Which way did you come in???
:D
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
Protecting a human life is not unreasonable..
So, your entire argument falls flat on that one salient point..
Speak2,
MC, wasn't it you that said "Don't feed the troll" over the weekend?
Nonetheless, you? ...
Com'on, S2.. MC's a Democrat...
And Democrats NEVER practice what they preach... It's a defining characteristic...
Like HYPOCRISY....
Come to think of it, it IS hypocrisy... Pure and simple...
We had a guy here named Kevin 12-14 years ago.. He was like MC... Always going on and on about how much he is "ignoring" me.. Matter of fact, he just couldn't shut up about how he was "ignoring" me..
Commentary after commentary, a dozen times or more, Kevin was "ignoring me".. :D
Just like MC... :D
I didn't respond to his answers the third time b/c I was bored by his tired responses.
And, by "bored" you mean you had no logical or rational facts to refute ANY of my facts..
You tried twice... I shot you down twice... :D
You should have gone with "the third time's the charm" mantra..
Ya might have been able to stymie me.. :D
But I guess my facts were too dead on ballz accurate.. :D
Story of my life.. :D
And someone raise the subject of@m paying @CW by the comment (or column yard -- why else would CW let him hurt Weigantia?) ...
That was before the CW we all know and loved passed away..
And it was only at the Holiday Fund Raiser time..
Liz,
Hmmm ... perhaps I should take that back.
MC is just stoned.. It appears to be his natural state of late....
MC,
Are you going to stand on that assertion, or provide some clarification or nuance?
Jesus H Christ, MC!!!
I HAVE provided clarification on it... DOZENS of times.. As a matter of fact, it was the VERY NEXT COMMENT!!
But, OK.. Since yer stoned, you might have missed it..
Anyways, I am fine with the 6 week mark.. That is when we have a heartbeat.. That, for me, signals the beginning of a human life..
So, if JL had altered his claim to:
6 Week Gestation = baby.
Then THAT would have been an accurate representation of what I believe...
"I hate it when I have to spell it out!!"
-Alan Rickman, DOGMA
I finally remembered where the quote was from..
Bugged me for a while.. :D
}}}My military and LEO and FSO and Security bona fides have been well established.. Long before you polluted Weigantian with your Trump/America hate and your PTDS…{{{{
How is this "too bad I told you already" dodge anything but a more sophisticated version of Don...with the same end result?
Because, when DH said it, he was talking about comments that took place within the last day or hour..
When I say it, I am talking about comments that have taken place more than a decade and a half ago...
Put another way.. Whenever the late CW needed info on military or LEO issues or procedures, he turned to yours truly...
Liz and JL can confirm this, if they are so inclined..
So, once again, yer drug-addled brain fails you when it comes to assimilating the facts..
Employee fired after refusing to work over Roe v. Wade ruling: 'I’m in mourning'
The worker said he is a 'queer brown person' who was 'fired during Pride month' for speaking up about abortion rights
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/employee-fired-refusing-work-roe-v-wade-ruling
And THAT'S the way it should be!!!
WORK... OR BE FIRED...
None of this SAFE SPACE crap.... :eyeroll:
The lazy moron is just a guy..
Guys have no say in the abortion issue, one way or the other...
At least, according to our very own Founder, Liz.. :D
amiright!?? :D
That concept is not in the Constitution itself. They created it out of thin air.
Just like Roe v Wade... :D
The game is now stacked against Democrats. And it will be for a long time to come. They are just getting started.
Which is what I have been saying (and MC has been denying) since August of last year.. :D
I am glad the moderator has finally put on record that what I have been saying all along is 1000% factual.. :D
But just as fast as they strike down laws they don't like, if Democrats controlled Congress and the presidency, they could just re-pass the same (or similar) laws, with a clause at the end which declares them beyond the reach of the courts. Checks and balances, just like the Founding Fathers intended.
So, all Democrats have to do is win back Congress and the Presidency and their golden.. :D
Well, we all know that THAT won't happen again... At least in my lifetime.. :D
So, I'm good...
“I believe we are more united than we are divided.”
-Joe Biden
If anyone needs any MORE proof at how utterly senile and dementia-ridden Joe Biden is...
^^^^ There it is.. :eyeroll:
Democrats are doing a GREAT job in destroying this country... :^/
Inside the Sick Posts of July 4 Massacre ‘Person of Interest’
‘TOY SOLDIER’
Robert Crimo is a wannabe rapper who goes by Awake and seems obsessed with shootings and murder.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/robert-bobby-crimo-person-of-interest-in-highland-park-parade-massacre-is-rapper-with-creepy-videos
Another America hating Democrat.... :eyeroll:
What *IS* it about Democrats, eh? That they hate this country soo much...
Now more than ever, Democrats need Hillary Clinton
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3544103-now-more-than-ever-democrats-need-hillary-clinton/
Yes.. EXACTLY!!!
Democrats!!! You really REALLY need Hillary Clinton!!
Now more than ever!!! :D
Rep. Ilhan Omar booed, told to ‘get the f–k out’ at Minnesota concert appearance
https://nypost.com/2022/07/04/rep-ilhan-omar-booed-at-minnesota-concert-appearance/
Hehehehehe Democrats are SOOOOO popular, eh?? :D
Got that? Congress can tie the hands of the Supreme Court on any law it passes, just by adding a clause at the bottom which states unequivocally that the courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever over this new law. Problem solved, in one elegant step.
Sounds very much like what Texas did with it's anti-baby killing law... :D Engineered it so the SCOTUS couldn't do anything about it..
If I recall correctly, ya'all HATED that law..
But *NOW* ya'all want to EMULATE that law???
Speak2??? Remind me again how this is NOT hypocrisy???
I seem to have forgotten, what with all the FACTS that prove hypocrisy is a Democrat must-have characteristic...
:D
As City Falls, Ukraine’s Last Hope in Luhansk Falls With It
https://dnyuz.com/2022/07/03/as-city-falls-ukraines-last-hope-in-luhansk-falls-with-it/
Yep.. Biden's Handlers are doing a bang up job in Ukraine..
We're paying $5+ a gas for the privilege of seeing Biden's Handlers lose... AGAIN...
:eyeroll:
Dobbs Ruling Is a Victory for ‘Black Life’
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/07/04/dobbs_ruling_is_a_victory_for_black_life_147834.html
Another PERFECT example of hypocrisy from Democrats..
Democrats are all for baby killing...
And Democrats claim that black lives matter..
Yet, the NUMBER ONE killer of black Americans in this country??
Not heart disease.. Not drugs... Not gun violence... DEFINITELY not LEOs...
The NUMBER ONE KILLER of black Americans in this country???
Abortion... AKA Baby Killing..
So, obviously, this leaves us with only ONE logical and rational conclusion..
Black lives do NOT matter to Democrats....
The logic is impeccable...
It's well documented that Planned Parenthood was started by a Democrat eugenicist whose goal was to wipe out the black race...
Planned Parenthood = Democrat Eugenics
It's also a well documented fact that baby killing AKA abortion impacts black Americans much more than any other race...
When adjusted for population density, black woman have ** 3 TIMES ** the abortions...
Democrat Eugenics AKA Planned Parenthood is fulfilling it's mission well.. :^/
THIS ^^^^ is ya'all's Planned Parenthood, people..
Nothing but a Democrat Eugenics project designed to devastate the black American community...
Once again, where is Cancel Culture when it's really needed?? When it's actually justified and righteous??
So, again, the question must be asked of Democrats..
Democrats.. Do black lives REALLY matter to you???
The facts clearly show that black lives DON'T matter to the people who support baby-killing AKA abortion...
I mean, if ya'all want MORE facts???
“Sanger drew a picture, familiar to her through 16 years of struggle and argument, of a minority of 20 millions of intelligent persons in the United States carrying the burden of 45,000,000 subnormal and mediocre persons; the intelligent limiting their families; the subnormal, multiplying unchecked.”
-Madison Capital Times, 18 Mar 1930
Of course by "sub-normal" and "mediocre" Sanger meant black Americans and hispanic Americans...
And, sadly, Sanger's experiment continues to this day..
Thanx to this enlightened SCOTUS, Roe v Wade and Democrat Eugenics v Casey are on the trash heap of history where they belong..
But all that does is return the power over baby killing AKA abortion to the states..
So, in Democrat states, in their minority black American and hispanic American communities....
Democrats'/Sangers' eugenics experiment can continue unabated and with no interference from those wishing to preserve life....
This is ya'all's Democrat Party in the here and now..
So, again the question must be asked..
Are ya'all sure ya'all are batting for the right team???
:eyeroll:
When I return, we will discuss how Democrats are destroying this country's military with their WOKE agenda...
:^/
Before I address that, a follow-up...
MC,
Put another way.. Whenever the late CW needed info on military or LEO issues or procedures, he turned to yours truly...
And you yourself..
You have stated for the record that you are ignorant of cop/LEO issues and procedures and you wanted to know more..
So, who did you turn to when you had questions??
The known and acknowledged expert in LEO matters here in Weigantia..
Me....
So, you yourself have acknowledged my expertise in those matters...
:D
Although I would point out that Minot ND is a much worse duty station than Fort Irwin... :^/
But the point is, the Democrat Party has wussified the US Military to the point of it being completely and utterly ineffective...
No where was this more evident than Biden's colossal cluster-frak that was the Afghanistan withdrawal....
The backbone, the fighting men and women, of our US Military is great..
It's the REMFers that are the problem... :^/
Michale,
And we agree that the Court should have never had a say in the decision at all..
I think YOU may be getting it!
NO ONE should have a say in whether a woman may have an abortion but the woman and her doctor. Not anyone in Congress and not any state pol in any state legislature, either.
I knew you would come around to my thinking on this, sooner or later. Never dreamed it would be this soon! Heh.
-Colonel (Ret) Kurt Schlichter
Nailed it....
The Democrat Party has so decimated the US Military, it's pathetic...
Liz,
NO ONE should have a say in whether a woman may have an abortion but the woman and her doctor. Not anyone in Congress and not any state pol in any state legislature, either.
I didn't agree with that part of it..
As long as there are Casey Anthony or Susan Smith types who want to kill their babies, the courts and the law MUST be involved in such decisions..
Where we DO agree is what this SCOTUS agreed with..
The SCOTUS should not be involved in that decision whatsoever...
You can thank your Democrats for involving the SCOTUS in that.....
But now things are as they once were.. As they SHOULD be..
Elected representatives from the states get to make that choice.. And if the people of the state don't like the choices the people's representatives make, the people can elect DIFFERENT representatives..
It's called DEMCRACY...
Why are you so adamantly against Democracy???
Okay, Michale, let me get this straight.
You think that people who voted for Biden would have switched their vote to Trump if they had known about Hunter Biden's laptop before the election?? Seriously??
Is that why Democrats and other Biden voters are now all up in arms over Hunter Biden's laptop?
Oh, wait ... they're not!
It's only Trump voters who are upset for some reason over Hunter Biden's laptop. But, I doubt they would change their vote over it. Heh.
I didn't agree with that part of it..
Heh.
Liz,
Put another way...
Hundreds of women have been charged for child abuse for doing drugs while pregnant...
Let's postulate a scenario where we have 2 women....
One woman kills her baby a week before birth.... The other women kills her baby a week after birth...
As you saying that the law should NOT be involved??
That both women should be able to kill their babies and the courts and the law says, "OK, fine with us"???..
If you want to use the viability line (as Jean Luc does) then the two babies are virtually identical...
So, why should one baby get the protections of the courts and the law and the other baby, whose ONLY crime is being 2 weeks younger, can be killed with impunity..
Could you please explain the logic of your position??
No matter HOW ya'all want to spin it...
Ya'all do not have a moral or ethical leg to stand on....
Michale,
Elected representatives from the states get to make that choice.. And if the people of the state don't like the choices the people's representatives make, the people can elect DIFFERENT representatives..
That's DEMCRAZY, alright!
You see ... women never, not for one second, delegated to elected representative their right to make that decision for themselves based on their doctor's care and advice.
That's DEMOCRACY!
One woman kills her baby a week before birth....
Assumes facts not in evidence!
If you want to use the viability line (as Jean Luc does) then the two babies are virtually identical...
I don't.
So, why should one baby get the protections of the courts and the law and the other baby, whose ONLY crime is being 2 weeks younger, can be killed with impunity..
You know your scenario of an abortion being done one week before birth is non-serious, no matter how many times you tap it out.
Questions, comments, insults?
Have a nice day!
Be back later ... much, much later. :(
Hope I didn't scare you away! :)
Liz,
You see ... women never, not for one second, delegated to elected representative their right to make that decision for themselves based on their doctor's care and advice.
Apparently, they did..
But, if they don't like it, they can always move..
Iran, China, North Korea... All those countries are HAPPY to let women kill their babies right up to birth..
Those women who want to kill their babies should be very happy in those countries.. :^/
Assumes facts not in evidence!
Uh.. Yes they are.. Because I postulated the scenario where she did...
I don't.
OK, so what's your line for abortion restriction???
You know your scenario of an abortion being done one week before birth is non-serious, no matter how many times you tap it out.
And yet, that is the right that Democrats are fighting for...
The right for unrestricted baby killing AKA abortions..
Have a nice day!
I usually do.. :D
OK, so what's your line for abortion restriction???
The line that is determined by a woman and her doctor.
"Are we clear, now? ARE WE CLEAR, NOW ... ??"
What movie is that from? Heh.
Okay, I really need to get my butt in gear and get to work!
The line that is determined by a woman and her doctor.
And what guidelines should the doctor follow???
The law?? The woman's wishes?? What???
Are you trying hard to come off as some kind of obtuse or does that sort of thing just come naturally for you? :)
The guidelines that should be followed by the doctor would be based on medical practice and the health of the woman, naturally.
Are you with me!?
Try not to have too much fun without me today!
So, if a woman's doctor says there is no medical reason for the woman to kill her unborn child, then you would be OK with the woman being forced to have the child...
So your "line" is whatever the doctor says and to hell with what the woman wants..
OK... I can see your argument...
So, then the laws in place would govern the doctor's actions when it comes the life of the innocent baby..
OK, I am liking your argument more and more..
This means the law protects the innocent baby and won't allow the mother to FORCE the doctor to kill her baby...
I think we're good.. :D
The guidelines that should be followed by the doctor would be based on medical practice and the health of the woman, naturally.
OK.. So, the health of the woman.. I am right there with you..
And if the health of the woman is such that there is NO medical reason for the woman to kill her baby, then she is forced to finish her pregnancy..
Yep.. We're good.. :D
I am fairly certain that every anti-baby killing law on the books or soon to be on the books makes an exception for the health/life of the mother..
So, yea... I think we have an accord here... :D
Only abortions to save the life of the mother should be allowed..
I am right there with ya, Liz...
Basically, I don't believe that a woman should be allowed to kill her baby AKA have an abortion after 6 weeks SOLELY because a baby is inconvenient...
If the health of the mother is in extreme danger, then exceptions can be made...
Exceptions can ALWAYS be made..
But it's always better to make the law strict and then carve out exceptions to fit specific cases..
WOW...
https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2022/07/720/405/FW36eLbWYAEhdUG1.jpg?ve=1&tl=1
Talk about being born under a lucky sign!!
And ta think, Democrats STILL hate cops.. :eyeroll:
END OF WATCH
Sergeant John Williams
Coralville Police Department, Iowa
End of Watch: Sunday, July 3, 2022
And remind the few...
When ill of us they speak..
That we are all that stands between..
The monsters and the weak...
Supreme Court abortion decision won't save Dems, Biden in midterm elections: Here are 5 reasons why
With Supreme Court in recess, Dems should prepare for the worst in midterm elections
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/supreme-court-abortion-decision-wont-save-dems-biden-elections-5-reasons-why
It's not going to be pretty for Democrats in November...
"Winter's coming..."
How not pretty???
Let's take a look...
The 2022 House Midterm by the Numbers
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/07/05/the_2022_house_midterm_by_the_numbers_147840.html
I won't quote the article to ya'all... Suffice it to say, it's bad for Democrats...
It's a good read....
Note that the above is the ONLY Weigantia Approved news source who's unbiased and objective nature is above reproach...
RCP is the Weigantian GO-TO source for good solid numbers..
The facts of the ZuckerBucks and their effect has been widely documented as fact..
"Facts" that you some how just can't link to. Yup, conspiracy theory...
Another America hating Democrat.... :eyeroll:
What *IS* it about Democrats, eh? That they hate this country soo much...
Dude was a Trumper. Your team. All you had to do was scroll down on the article you posted.
Why do you hate America so much?
"Facts" that you some how just can't link to. Yup, conspiracy theory...
As usual, you are factually not accurate..
https://thefga.org/one-pagers/zuckerbucks/
Oh no, money influenced elections, someone call the Koch brothers. Can you point to something illegal? Votes changed? Anything other than some variation of what Republicans already do?
https://dab57h0r8ahff.cloudfront.net/575197/uploads/bdddc820-fc04-11ec-bb73-ebad5fcdfc69_800_420.jpeg
Definitely a Democrat.. :eyeroll:
You have your facts...
And you continue to whine..
You have your facts...
Do I? If it's such a big scandal you should be able to point to actual crimes committed. Otherwise go full Don and work get money out of politics for all sides. Until then it's just a Koch move from the left...
He's a rapper with face tattoos and LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME hair..
Definitely a Democrat..
Definitely a Democrat.. :eyeroll:
Aww, why did you not link to him draped in a Trump flag or the video of him waving to a Trump motorcade?
He is one of your's...
Until then it's just a Koch move from the left...
Not factually accurate..
Koch money NEVER bought entire county election boards and then staffed them SOLELY with GOP operatives..
Once again, you are wrong...
Koch money NEVER bought entire county election boards and then staffed them SOLELY with GOP operatives..
That's not what your link said...
That's because you lack reading comprehension... :D
https://thefga.org/blog/zuckerbucks-2020-election/
Obviously you need to be spoon fed, Bashi.. :eyeroll:
Ruling on Roe v Wade actually set abortion rights back decades...
The Road Not Taken
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/07/05/the_road_not_taken_147841.html
Leave it to Democrats..
They had abortion rights that were SAFE, LEGAL and RARE...
But they got greedy and now they have nothing..
Pigs get fed.... Hogs get slaughtered..
Prices don't drop when inflation eases. Why your wallet will be hurting for a while.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/prices-don-t-drop-when-inflation-eases-why-your-wallet-will-be-hurting-for-a-while/ar-AAZd9nO
Thanx Democrats.. :eyeroll:
And, come 28 July, the United States officially is in recession..
Again... Great job, Democrats :eyeroll:
Obviously you need to be spoon fed, Bashi.. :eyeroll:
Maybe, but that would require you to have an actual spoon. Your new link complains about get out to vote but nothing about your big conspiracy. It's also from a conservative think tank. Got anything that backs you up? Bonus points for something from a not so biased organization...
Put another way.. Whenever the late CW needed info on military or LEO issues or procedures, he turned to yours truly...
Yeah, but that was before Kick and I busted you for lying about your law enforcement experience... which is that you have NONE! Hell, there is nothing to show that you were even an MP in the military.
You said that you had to shoot and kill a woman who attacked you when you were an MP, but I have yet to find any news articles that support your claims of killing a woman in self defense. In your retelling of the supposed event you admitted that you violated your SOP's when you failed to wait for backup before entering a domestic violence scene. SO even if you were an MP, you weren't smart enough to follow the rules by your own telling.
You were never civil law enforcement by your own admission. Your criminal record would have prevented that from ever happening.
But it was your lack of knowledge in criminal procedure that made me realize that you were full of shit. Heck, it took me a while to catch on that you were lying... I excused some of what you said as possibly being just how different departments do things in different parts of the country. But YOU outed yourself when you couldn't keep your lies about your work experience straight. It was obvious you were busted when your claim stopped being that you had worked "30 plus years in law enforcement" and suddenly was that you worked "30 plus years in public safety."
While I appreciate you posting the tributes to fallen officers, I am disgusted by your willingness to steal their valor with your lies.
So, YES, you fooled CW with your stories. You are a decent grifter in that you speak with such confidence that most people will view that as coming from personal knowledge and experience. That you cannot provide any actual proof that you were law enforcement other than that someone believed you when you claimed that you were former law enforcement is a clear sign that you are lying.
Yeah, but that was before Kick and I busted you for lying about your law enforcement experience...
Never happened..
You said that you had to shoot and kill a woman who attacked you when you were an MP, but I have yet to find any news articles that support your claims of killing a woman in self defense.
It was on Okinawa, ya moron.. :eyeroll:
n your retelling of the supposed event you admitted that you violated your SOP's when you failed to wait for backup before entering a domestic violence scene.
Again, not factually accurate..
You were never civil law enforcement by your own admission. Your criminal record would have prevented that from ever happening.
Not factually accurate..
But it was your lack of knowledge in criminal procedure that made me realize that you were full of shit.
You mean, like when you didn't even know what constituted 'assault'??? :eyeroll:
That you cannot provide any actual proof that you were law enforcement other than that someone believed you when you claimed that you were former law enforcement is a clear sign that you are lying.
And yet, you have NO FACTS to support ANY of your claims..
Whereas my LEO and military bona fides are well established by the late CW and by MC in the here and now..
So, once again.. As usual, you are full of kaa-kaa... :D
And, once again, proof positive that mental health is the common denominator amongst Crowd Based Mass Shootings..
The Chicago shooter was another cross-dresser.. :eyeroll:
Russ,
You have never proven that you are gay and married to a cop.. You have also never proven that you were a 911 operator and that you, supposedly got fired because your supervisor wanted you to do something racist and you refused...
So, obviously you are full of shit and NONE of that is factually accurate..
That's your "logic" thrown back atcha...
"Whatta marroon"
-Bugs Bunny
R: So the death penalty for those who took part in the failed insurrection on Jan.6?
M: For the one's who assaulted cops??
Abso-frakin'-loutly...
WOW! Funny, this is the first time you've made any statements that are supportive of the DOJ going after those that were part of the failed insurrection.
For the ones who were being taken on a tour of the capitol BY cops??? Or the ones who were let into the capitol BY cops???
Not so much.. :eyeroll:
For those officers that were facing down a crowd that had them outnumbered 50 to 1, I have no problem with them letting the crowd thru when it was clear there was no backup coming to their aid. The only other choice was to start firing into the crowd, but even then they would have been overrun once their bullets ran out. Not sure which officers were authorized to be giving tours, but if you need to believe they were, go for it. Those officers deserve to be fired... and I am pretty sure they were.
R: Assault doesn't deserve death, in my opinion;
M: Assault on a police officer does, in my opinion...
Because assault on a police officer is an assault on society..
WTF?!?! Seriously?
Because assault on a police officer is an assault on society..
On what bath salts induced trip did you come up with this gem? How does one physically assault society? And I am sure you think your answer sounds patriotic as shit, but it is straight up fascism! Don't look now, but your swastika is showing.
R: Surprised you'd take such a strong stance against the failed insurrectionists, but so be it.
M: Why would you be surprised??
I am surprised because you have never said anything about supporting the arrests and indictments of those who were part of the failed insurrection prior to this. And let's be real honest here, you have had PLENTY of opportunity to do so. In fact, you've been very vocal in your criticism of the DOJ going after the failed insurrectionists. So, yeah, I was surprised.
Unlike you, I am unwavering and totally consistent in my support of LEOs...
Really? Funny, you might wanna reconsider that statement if you think back to what you said about the five officers that testified to Congress about what they endured on January 6th.
You support the Party that hates cops.. You support the Party that kills cops..
And you support the Party that requires you to lie about such things and choose to live in a bubble of your own rhetoric. I left the party when I finally got tired of hearing how every Democrat was "out to destroy America"... which is what ignorant and developmentally challenged snowflakes have to tell themselves in order to feel like they are superior to someone. It's what you say when you cannot defend your own positions. It's a distraction from the truth.
You have been so programmed to oppose anything a Democrat supports. You think that everything is a "us vs. them" battle. But then, you are here to agitate, not honestly debate issues.
So, Russ..
Let's recap...
According to YOU, the late CW was a gullible fool..
According to YOU, MtnCaddy is ALSO a gullible fool...
But YOU...
YOU got it going on and YOU know what's what...
BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Now THAT's funny, Russ.. :D
WOW! Funny, this is the first time you've made any statements that are supportive of the DOJ going after those that were part of the failed insurrection.
Not factually accurate.. You obviously haven't been paying any attention to JL's comments.. :eyeroll:
Because assault on a police officer is an assault on society..
On what bath salts induced trip did you come up with this gem? How does one physically assault society? And I am sure you think your answer sounds patriotic as shit, but it is straight up fascism!
The fact that you believe this PROVES you absolutely NOTHING to do with Law Enforcement..
Tell ya what, you ask your supposed husband about my statement..
If he really exists and he is really a cop, he can set you straight..
You have been so programmed to oppose anything a Democrat supports. You think that everything is a "us vs. them" battle.
Not factually accurate.. I have voted Dem in my life MANY times..
It's even well documented that I voted for Odumbo in 2008...
So, once again, you have PROVEN beyond any doubt how completely and utterly ignorant you are..
:eyeroll:
So... You're ignorant.. And you support the Party that hates cops and the Party that kills cops.. And you support the Party that gets cops killed..
Gods, it really sucks to be you...
The fact that you believe this PROVES you absolutely NOTHING to do with Law Enforcement..
That SHOULD read...
The fact that you believe this PROVES you have absolutely NOTHING to do with Law Enforcement..
You have never proven that you are gay and married to a cop.. You have also never proven that you were a 911 operator and that you, supposedly got fired because your supervisor wanted you to do something racist and you refused...
And I have never needed to prove those things are true because I have never said anything that contradicts or conflicts with those things! We give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that what they are saying is true until they give us a reason to question their honesty. I had no reason to think that you were lying to me until your stories changed.
Michael, everyone believed you up until you made statements that conflicted with your previous claims. You said you had only been an MP and were never civil law enforcement. You did not know how internal investigations worked or the legal reasoning behind certain procedures.
No one doubted what you were saying until you gave us reason to doubt you by offering conflicting versions of your own work history. If there were explainable reasons for the clearly differing accounts, you had the opportunity to provide them. That's what a person who is telling the truth does... they clarify where we got confused. You, instead, chose to attack those of us that pointed out your inconsistencies to you. That's what liars do.
You got caught lying and you still cannot just admit the truth.
How perverse, depraved and degenerated can the Democrat Party get???
Apparently, QUITE perverse, depraved, degenerated.... :eyeroll:
You people must be SOOO proud of your Democrat Party???
Democrat Party = Groomer Party
You people are actually 100% OK with this!!????
#sad
And I have never needed to prove those things are true because I have never said anything that contradicts or conflicts with those things!
Same here..
Michael, everyone believed you up until you made statements that conflicted with your previous claims. You said you had only been an MP and were never civil law enforcement. You did not know how internal investigations worked or the legal reasoning behind certain procedures.
And the facts you have to support your BS claim??
{{ccchhhiiirrrrpppppp}}{{ccchhhiiirrrrpppp}}}
Yea.. That's what I figured..
You got caught lying and you still cannot just admit the truth.
And yet, you cannot provide ANY facts that prove I have lied about ANYTHING..
Why is that, Russ??
Washington state school board director to teach sexual 'pleasure' class to 9-year-olds at sex shop
The classes will be held at a local sex shop called WinkWink
So much for the claim that Democrats are not grooming children...
Thank gods we have Ron DeSantis here in FL as governor..
So, Russ..
Let's recap...
According to YOU, the late CW was a gullible fool..
According to YOU, MtnCaddy is ALSO a gullible fool...
I never said that they were gullible fools. I simply stated that you had lied to them and they believed your lies. I believed your lies as well...until you couldn't keep your stories straight.
But YOU...
YOU got it going on and YOU know what's what...
I am smart enough to know when two stories do not match. You can't have had "30 plus years in law enforcement" if you were only an MP and had not spent 30 plus years in the military. Michale, YOU are the one who made conflicting claims about your work history. Kick and I simply pointed out your own words to you.
I never said that they were gullible fools. I simply stated that you had lied to them and they believed your lies. I believed your lies as well...until you couldn't keep your stories straight.
And yet, you have NO FACTS to support ANY of your claims..
Why is that???
I am smart enough to know when two stories do not match. You can't have had "30 plus years in law enforcement" if you were only an MP and had not spent 30 plus years in the military.
I have never claimed I was 30+ years in Law Enforcement.. Nor have I ever claimed I was 30+ years in the military...
Once again.. You are full of shit when you make such claims..
. Michale, YOU are the one who made conflicting claims about your work history. Kick and I simply pointed out your own words to you.
And yet, you can't point out ANY of those conflicts..
Why is that, Russ??
Because YOU know you are full of shit... And *I* know you are full of shit..
And anyone else here with more than 2 brain cells to rub together ALSO knows you are full of shit.. :D
So, we're all on the same page.. Except for you and the morons.. :D
Let me know when you actually have FACTS to support any of your kaa-kaa, Russ... :D
The Chicago shooter was another cross-dresser.. :eyeroll:
Another? You were proven wrong on the last one. Should we expect the same here? I heard on the radio we was in disguise dressed as a woman to reduce suspicion. Any proof he was a cross dresser?
..he was in..
So, history repeats itself..
Russ spews a lot of BS...
I ask Russ for facts to support ANY of his claims...
He runs away and hides...
I wish I could say I was surprised...
But I'm not...
I gave you an hour and then some, Russ.. PLENTY of time to find ANY facts to support your BS claims..
If there were actually any facts..
But, as usual, youse got no facts... :eyeroll:
Anyways, I am going to grab a beer from the kitchen then and go watch JURASSIC WORLD: DOMINION...
I'll check back later and see if you ever came up with any facts.. :D
I am not going to hold my breath....
Michale,
All I can say is ...
... I think I'm gonna have to resurrect the CW Sunday Night Music Festival and Dance Party ...
... and YOU, my friend, will have to attend ...
... not only in spirit, as has been the norm, but ...
in the flesh and blood, and rock and roll!!!
... you game!?
Michale
23
Assault on a police officer does, in my opinion...
If assault on a police officer deserves death in your opinion, then CW pegged you dead on accurate. You aren't the least bit pro life or concerned with the rights of people; your issue is definitely one of controlling everyone.
Because assault on a police officer is an assault on society..
No, it isn't. You get things muddled a lot... so allow me to teach you some facts for which you are perpetually and infinitely confused:
(1) Fetuses aren't people.
(2) Trump isn't America.
(3) "Police officers" aren't society.
Unlike you, I am unwavering and totally consistent in my support of LEOs...
Bullshit.
You support the Party that hates cops.. You support the Party that kills cops..
You are the cockholster for the criminal con and the Party who sent a crowd of people to commit multiple crimes including the interfering in the constitutionally mandated job of Congress (among other felonies), all while knowing full well that there were people in the crowd who were heavily armed and dangerous. When it was over, he told them he loved them, all while knowing full well that they assaulted multiple police officers.
So if you actually believe that those who assault cops deserve death, then a good start to proving your beliefs are to hold those responsible to the full extent of your statement who was part of the preplanned conspiracy to assault police officers in order to breach the capitol. Not rocket science.
Strange that no one was shot, eh?
Michale
74
Basically, I don't believe that a woman should be allowed to kill her baby AKA have an abortion after 6 weeks SOLELY because a baby is inconvenient...
Basically, I think you severely overestimate the number of people who actually give a shit what you believe since:
(a) you're not them
(b) you're not their medical professional
(c) it's none of your damn business.
I'll make this as simple as I can for people of your ilk who can't ever seem to grasp unbelievably simple concepts.
Being pro choice is an easy concept: It means you make your choice and allow others to make their choice.
When you're advocating for the government (whether at the federal, state, or local level) to make that decision for individuals and families, then you're pro government being up everyone's ass.
If the health of the mother is in extreme danger, then exceptions can be made...
Incorrect. If you believe that government at any level should make that decision, then that exception may or not be available because (in your blind ignorance), you decided to take that decision out of the hands of the individual/family and medical team in favor of government's decision.
Exceptions can ALWAYS be made..
Not factually accurate. Exceptions obviously would depend on the government entity to which you're eager to defer your choice; try to allow that fact to permeate your brain (if your rolling eyes have been able to locate it back there). There actually may be no exceptions.
But it's always better to make the law strict and then carve out exceptions to fit specific cases..
Said the assclown who stated above that those who assault police officers deserve death. The reason no one takes your prattling monotonous bullshit about "democracy" seriously is because you obviously prefer autocracy and rule by big government, and you're just far too clueless to recognize that fact about yourself. :)
Let me rephrase that ...
Strange that none of these yahoos carrying guns shot anyone.
Or, did they?
Haven't been following too terribly closely ...
ListenWhenYouHear
97
There you go again, Russ... telling it exactly like it is.
You were never civil law enforcement by your own admission.
Right, Russ. He definitely insisted that he never said he was a "cop." Then we easily posted a link where he said exactly what he said he never said that he said. He's a liar. We also have that time he admitted to going to jail, and then we also have license suspension and him driving anyway (getting caught) because how much does he actually respect the law: Zero, zilch, nada.
Your criminal record would have prevented that from ever happening.
Not to mention his abnormally large girth that couldn't pass physical inspection no way, no how. It's odd how we say "not to mention" when we definitely have to mention it, but I digress.
But it was your lack of knowledge in criminal procedure that made me realize that you were full of shit.
It was painfully obvious too.
Heck, it took me a while to catch on that you were lying... I excused some of what you said as possibly being just how different departments do things in different parts of the country. But YOU outed yourself when you couldn't keep your lies about your work experience straight. It was obvious you were busted when your claim stopped being that you had worked "30 plus years in law enforcement" and suddenly was that you worked "30 plus years in public safety."
Not to mention that "Mr. Public Safety" says he believes an assault on a police officer deserves death. He definitely cannot stop himself from proving over and over that he doesn't understand the meaning of "protect and serve" and was definitely never a police officer.
While I appreciate you posting the tributes to fallen officers, I am disgusted by your willingness to steal their valor with your lies.
Russ nails it again, of course.
Love you, Russ. :)
Elizabeth Miller
116
Strange that no one was shot, eh?
This crazy QAnon loudmouth Trump cult lunatic was actually fatally shot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twQ5BEFlNCQ
Right. But, it is still strange that everyone keeps talking about Trump supporters showing up with guns that day and Trump knowing about it and yet none of them shot anyone ...
Elizabeth Miller
118|121
Let me rephrase that ...
Okay, rephrase that.
Strange that none of these yahoos carrying guns shot anyone.
Or, did they?
A Trump cult zombie used a stun gun multiple times on the attack of Officer Fanone and caused him to suffer a heart attack. The mob was attempting to remove his gun from his holster, shouting: "Kill him with his own gun."
As multiple Capitol Police have testified and stated, they did not fire their weapons at the armed insurrectionists so as not to escalate the situation wherein the mob was attacking them with sharpened flag poles, various assorted blunt weapons, chemical spray, etc., in the premeditated conspiracy to occupy the capitol in order to interrupt the constitutionally mandated work of Congress (multiple felonies).
De-escalation is standard practice in a situation like that, and the only officer who used a firearm gave multiple warnings to the "tourists" who were breaking the glass of barricaded doors in order to enter a part of the capitol where lawmakers were being evacuated to safety on the other side.
Right. But, it is still strange that everyone keeps talking about Trump supporters showing up with guns that day and Trump knowing about it and yet none of them shot anyone ...
Yes, Trump was briefed that the crowd was armed. He sent them to the capitol regardless, knowing full well they were.
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/03/capitol-protesters-were-armed-with-variety-of-weapons/#:~:text=Before%20and%20after%20the%20storming%20of%20the%20Capitol%2C,crossbow%2C%20a%20stun%20gun%20and%2011%20Molotov%20cocktails.
Anyone who tells you the crowd wasn't armed is an ignorant rube regurgitating right-wing lies.
Okay, Kick, let me try once more ...
It's strange with all of the media emphasis recently on Trump supporters going to the Capital with firearms and Trump knowing about this and yet none of these insurrectionists fired their weapons. Not even after one of them was shot.
I'm just saying its strange. I'm NOT saying that they weren't carrying firearms. I am saying that I would have expected at least one of them to discharge their firearm ... but, they didn't. It's strange, eh? :)
The Doors - People Are Strange