Oh no, we did see this. Manchin, Collins and others are just the two faced morons their characters play out everday.
It's all about deception.
As a nation, it's all about what we want to believe even when the truth is known.
The insurrection on 1/6 wasn't a love fest but an organized coup attempt created by the former president.
Trumpians (and it seems more joining that army daily) believe it was a mild protest - The Big Steal = The Big Lie
Liars and grifters taking advantage of the gullible.
your pink pussy hat and get to it.
(no message)
Then it's the government's body and their choice. Didn't see any call to arms over that. Didn't hear Auntie Maxine or AOC or the masked P hat dudes protest over the "my body" rule. Didn't see the WNBA or any other sports league complain about "my body, my choice". Something about the power of killing innocents is a complete turn on.
It wasn’t something until Reagan flip flopped his initial beliefs later in his fist term. Then a little Later the bombings and the shootings of clinics and doctors and woman’s health care facilities began. Then Gingrich vocalized it was okay to be a domestic terrorist group because it was a good idea to be that kind of conservative.
Y’all are radical’s.
(no message)
i.e., Dred Scott v John Sanford (1857) changed by the Thirteenth Amendment (XIIV) amendment passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, by the House of Representatives on January 31, 1865, and ratified by the required 27 of the then 36 states on December 6, 1865, and proclaimed on December 18, or through the political process of appointments by the executive branch to the SCOTUS of justices with changed political philosophies over time, i.e., Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) ------[Truman, FDR, Eisenhower]---> Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Certainly, I hope that you would not be in favor of being limited by stare decisis in preventing the overturning of Dred Scott or Plessy.
“Settled law” appears frequently in judicial opinions—sometimes to refer to binding precedent, sometimes to denote precedent that has acquired a more mystical permanence, and sometimes as a substantive part of legal doctrine. During judicial confirmation hearings, the term is bandied about as Senators, advocacy groups, and nominees discuss judicial philosophy and deeper ideological commitments. But its varying and often contradictory uses have given rise to a concern that settled law is simply a repository for hopelessly disparate ideas. Without definitional precision, it risks becoming nothing more than empty jargon. Even those who contend that settled law is actually a meaningful concept, admit it does not embody any single, unified idea.
Hope this helps.
all said when asked about Roe v Wade as a constitutional right - "It's settled Law" in a form of deflection from actually answering the question put to them.
Just as you think it's clever to dismiss their answer now - We have Collins, Murkowski, Manchin and many others who said they believed that answer
to be a solid reason to believe that R v W was safe from the grip of them being activist judges.
You are easily one of the most dishonest posters here. And please don't give us the "I served in the marines" as some sort of pretense which makes
the one who is right. You're not. You're dishonest and it's unbecoming of your background.
(no message)
but I'm not trying to override your opinion, I actually understand your position because it will certainly come up by others when newly confirmed Justice K. Brown takes her seat and joins the liberal wing on opinions. When Justice Soto Mayor was confirmed the same type of arguments took place.
her record on R v W in separate decisions have been questioned. She was called a Hard Left Activist by many but her
backing of W's defense of the government's right to not pay for abortions for undocumented citizens or noncitizens
was brought into question by women's rights groups.
So, no, unless you can find her answer to that direct question, I say you are wrong in your post.
being asked.
(no message)
(no message)