Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just as I said... When liberals were frothing at the mouth over Kavanaugh, I thought it was interesting to see how uninformed they were about Gorsuch--who's even more conservative (and younger, too ).
Still, you can always count on conservatives to view each case on its merits--as opposed to the liberal wing, who never veer from their leftist perch.
I think the issue is that Gorsuch was replacing a conservative judge and Kavannaugh was replacing a moderate one. With that said, I don't agree with how the Democratic Party handled the Kavannaugh situation. All it did was energize the religious right to vote GOP in the midterms. Didn't make much of a difference in urban America but in the rural Bible Belt, things are about to get even worse as the authoritarian religious wing of the GOP tightens its grip.
Neither Kavanaugh or Gorsuch care about these social issues. They were pushed forward by the Federalist Society because of their pro-business views. Anyone who believed otherwise was being sold a bill of goods.
Gorsuch actually voted to hear the case along with Thomas and one other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow
That's impossible, Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS meant the deaths of millions of Americans according to the lunatic left. What happened lefty?
The SCOTUS is trying to avoid hearing extremely divisive topics for their first few months. Probably a wise idea.
In the meantime, Ohio has proposed a total ban on abortions; hoping for this to work it's way up to the SCOTUS later. So, yes, attacks on a woman's right to freedom of choice will be continuing. We will then see what SCOTUS says. I am up for being pleasantly surprised.
I am sure that this must seem weird to popint of being incomprehensible by local supporters of the anti-constitution activist left, but these "conservative" judges are just ruling on the law. If they had accumulated four votes, that would have just been a decision to hear this case. As it stands, the lower courts will hear them, and then the option to appeal will still be available after that, if it is determined to be necessary.
They are not ruling on the issue, they are ruling on the law.
People are convince by a dishonest press which is using its First Amendment privileges to promote ideology, not seek the truth. This is just another case that proves it. This should be obvious to people but the media is good at it and people will ignore the obvious and give excuses instead. Soon the media will give people talking points to convince them to ignore the obvious.
People are convince by a dishonest press which is using its First Amendment privileges to promote ideology, not seek the truth. This is just another case that proves it. This should be obvious to people but the media is good at it and people will ignore the obvious and give excuses instead. Soon the media will give people talking points to convince them to ignore the obvious.
You just said exactly NOTHING with regard to this case. There was zero ruling by the SCOTUS on this particular case so I'm not sure what you are rambling on about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
