Once in a while they slip the truth.
1 posted on
01/15/2014 3:03:14 PM PST by
Morgana
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
To: Morgana
C'mon Supremes, let's be pro-choice and overturn Roe vs Wade and let the states decide as they did before 1973. That's the real pro-choice argument for abortion - let states regulate abortion.
I don't know why Republicans don't frame the argument as this, they'd win every time.
To: Morgana
I am anxious about this Free Speech decision pending at the US Supreme Court.
It sounds like the Colorado as well as the Massachusetts law may be overturned (allowing Abortion Clinics to set up a buffer zone VOIDING free speech in that area).
3 posted on
01/15/2014 3:09:59 PM PST by
topher
(Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
To: Morgana
4 posted on
01/15/2014 3:10:02 PM PST by
Steely Tom
(If the Constitution can be a living document, I guess a corporation can be a person.)
To: Morgana
Any Constitution-free Zone should be thrown out, but sounds like SCOTUS is okay with them
5 posted on
01/15/2014 3:11:18 PM PST by
GeronL
(Extra Large Cheesy Over-Stuffed Hobbit)
To: Morgana
They have no problem with naked feminists running into a church and throwing red paint at the altar I bet, but let someone blaspheme the leftist holy sites and No Speech Zones are okay
6 posted on
01/15/2014 3:12:46 PM PST by
GeronL
(Extra Large Cheesy Over-Stuffed Hobbit)
To: Morgana
They need to get over the meme of “...blocking entrances and exits...”
It is NOT about “blocking” anything.
Having said that, I’d like to clean up the “pro-life” act we have going in Denver, that focuses on shouting HELL AND DAMNATION to already stressed out mothers.
(coming from guys who look like they just shuffled over from the rescue mission)
They need a message of love and help and a clear path to options.
7 posted on
01/15/2014 3:15:10 PM PST by
G Larry
To: Morgana
First Sotomayor appearing to side with Catholic nuns regarding the birth control mandate and now this.Maybe...just *maybe*....the have a glimmer of decency in them.
8 posted on
01/15/2014 3:16:38 PM PST by
Gay State Conservative
(Osama Obama Care: A Religion That Will Have You On Your Knees!)
To: Morgana
I wonder where Juan “Traitor” Roberts is on this one. Probably depends on whether it’s covered in the blackmail agreement or not. Sounds like Kennedy’s in the bag. Not that it really matters; I’d trade this one for the OsamaScare ruling in a nanosecond.
10 posted on
01/15/2014 3:18:02 PM PST by
Still Thinking
(Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
To: Morgana
Kagan MAY understand that the abortuaries are benefitted most by unscrupulous MEN...
12 posted on
01/15/2014 3:19:45 PM PST by
goodnesswins
(R.I.P. Doherty, Smith, Stevens, Woods.)
To: Morgana
13 posted on
01/15/2014 3:22:43 PM PST by
JSDude1
(Defeat Hagan, elect a Constutional Conservative: Dr. Greg Brannon!)
To: Morgana
Why has it come to this? Why do we let 9 Americans tell the rest of us what the Constitution says? The language isn't that confusing, nor is the interpretation that twisted.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That's it. Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech. Free speech is absolute, as is the press, peaceable assembly and petitioning the government. I don't need a bunch of politically appointed Ivy-leaguers to tell me what it means.
15 posted on
01/15/2014 3:28:02 PM PST by
1010RD
(First, Do No Harm)
To: Morgana
Perhaps it was no accident.
16 posted on
01/15/2014 3:39:58 PM PST by
TigersEye
(Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
To: Morgana
Maybe not ironic. I’ve been reading numerous things saying she is authentically anti-abortion.
17 posted on
01/15/2014 3:44:24 PM PST by
DManA
To: Morgana
To: Morgana
I hope your amicus brief spelled the word “statute.”
19 posted on
01/15/2014 4:06:59 PM PST by
NCLaw441
To: Morgana
Most disturbing about this case though is that it was not just Massachusetts defending this pro-abortion law, the Obama Administration sent its lawyers to the Supreme Court to argue that this anti-pro-life speech law in no way violated the Constitution.Wonder what these evil scumbags are up too...?
There is an means to an end here...positive it's not a good one...
20 posted on
01/15/2014 4:23:02 PM PST by
Popman
("Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God" - Thomas Jefferson)
To: Morgana
One of the great mysteries of the Supreme Court is that, while some presidents want to nominate serious justices, they get ideologues; and sometimes when they want to appoint ideologues, they get serious justices. Even at that level they cannot peer into someone’s heart.
And justices do persuade each other of many things.
But imagine the surprise if one or more of the Obama justices turned out to be more reasoned than he wanted.
24 posted on
01/15/2014 4:46:22 PM PST by
yefragetuwrabrumuy
(There Is Still A Very Hot War On Terror, Just Not On The MSM. Rantburg.com)
To: Morgana
Can one be arrested for discussing the Red Sox on that sidewalk?
27 posted on
01/15/2014 5:02:23 PM PST by
cookcounty
(IRS = Internal Revenge Service.)
To: Morgana
Probably their argument is that there is some sort of heightened possibility of violence, but in that case, there should also be restrictions on the approaches to bars and liquor stores, which in fact are much more likely to become violent scenes.
28 posted on
01/15/2014 5:06:46 PM PST by
cookcounty
(IRS = Internal Revenge Service.)
To: Morgana
Speaking out against abortion in front of an abortion clinic is the definition of “fighting words” to a liberal.
29 posted on
01/15/2014 5:09:42 PM PST by
VerySadAmerican
(".....Barrack, and the horse Mohammed rode in on.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson