You lying is proof that you lack integrity. I never said anything about the honor of Democrats and your need to make up infantile names for them also show your lack of intellect.
Here's the thing: They didn't believe it. They knew better. The record never supported their position. They just wanted to change the law, so they did.
Since I haven't lied, you look foolish assuming that position. They are crap, and they show it in EVERY position they take.
Of course you lied, it is there for ev eryone to read.
Because I showed that you lie?
You haven't shown anything yet, except your posterior.
Just that you lie.
Your kiss was sweet. I felt like Trump.
BTW, intelligent people can keep track of what they post, something you clearly can not do.
Well, you helped me decide that 12 year olds aren't smart enough for me to waste any more time trying to carry on a conversation. AMF
Probably because those that are 13 are more like your speed. Glad to help.
Thanks for confirming you are the 12 year old.
History books (assuming we still have them) will call out the Roberts court as the most anti-rights court in American history.
That is only because history books written by leftist filth are completely bereft of facts.
To be clear we should differentiate between electroconvulsive treatments and shock devices, the latter definitely is torture.
This is the federalist society’s plan."The Senate has confirmed 200 of President Trump’s judicial nominees, roughly 23 percent of all federal judgeships. That includes 53 to the nation’s appellate courts, the court immediately under the Supreme Court. What emerges from this group of new judges is a judiciary stacked with young conservative ideologues, many of whom lack basic judicial qualifications."
U.S. Senate
www.feinstein.senate.gov
I couldn't find any records that would be comparable for other former presidents.
Citizens United v. FEC
Be careful what you plot for. Some of those "law and order" judges are being pretty hard on the insurrectionists.
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) upheld the First Amendment by tossing out the unconstitutional McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform bill. So if that is your example of the Supreme Court violating the First Amendment by upholding the First Amendment you have some very bizarre examples.
There's a difference between a Supreme Court decision you don't like and being "anti-rights".
Citizens violates individual rights by equalizing corporate speech and individual speech. Giving corporations individual rights (you don't believe the BoR was meant for corporations do you)?. Corporations don't die. Individuals were.
Corporations are not individuals. By giving them individual rights (they are not individuals-ever read an obituary for a corporation), you are reducing individual rights. Remember, this is about symbolic speech, the giving of cash to political campaigns. A very small percentage of individuals have the ability to compete in that arena.
As I said, I don't agree with it either. But it's not "anti-rights", it expanded freedom of speech.
SCOTUS said that the then almost forty, now 46 year old coverage formulas were out of date. They suspended the obsolete law until Congress passed a new law. The ball is in Congress' court.
No, it isn't. SCOTUS merely refused to issue an injunction against the law without a hearing. I realize that when it's a cause you favor that immediate gratification is expected, but SCOTUS has expedited the case and has granted a hearing the same year. By the SCOTUS way of reckoning time, that's hyperspeed.
ROFL! You don't violate rights by upholding them.
I said that Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) was a State's rights case. It had absolutely nothing to do with individual rights either way.
On the contrary, the Supreme Court has most certainly upheld and defended individual and State rights in a wide variety of cases just in the last 30 years. They most certainly are not neutral on the issue. These are just some examples in the last 30 years where the Supreme Court upheld individual and State rights:
I disagree for two reasons. BoR is about individual rights. Corporations are not individuals. That 'expansion' limits individual rights of symbolic speech regarding campaign contributions. What individual (in general) can compete with corporations in this area?
Are you seriously conflating the individuals that are part of the corporation and the corporation? What happens to the individuals right to free speech when they die? And what happens to a corporations free speech when they die...oh yeah, they don't die.