Replies

Maybe you can't remember your original point.

It was that nobody but the GOP is hurt by not having a GOP controlled Senate. I gave the Boy Scouts of America case as an example of something which would have gone the other way if not for Republicans. You didn't seem to think that amounted to much then asserted that the conservatives are no good on other things, like drug laws, and that they'll lock up drug users which you didn't think was a good idea. I said that drug laws are passed by the elected representatives of the people and not the courts. You in turn said that the conservative judges refuse to rule that all the drug laws are unconstitutional so they're at fault. I asserted that drug laws are not in themselves unconstitutional. You cited the Tenth Amendment and the preamble to the constitution. I asserted that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution allows the federal government to outlaw drug trafficking across state lines and that the preamble was just a general philosophical statement and doesn't have any specific application and challenged you to cite a case where it did.

So, I reiterate, cases like the Boy Scouts of America's (successful) attempt to retain their First Amendment rights of Freedom of Association and Freedom of Religion are at stake when the U.S. Senate (and White House) changes hands.

Republican president will sign CFR which will OBLITERATE First Amendment rights of Freedom of Association and Freedom of Religion... how many Republican Reps and Senators voted for CFR?

For the record I don't think the Boy Scouts amount to much when weighed against the numerous examples of GOP indifference to the Bill Of Rights. However as I said in a previous post or reply the Boy Scouts have the right to exclude whomever they please; if we had Libertarians on the Supreme Court they would not have been in the crosshairs like this in the first place. I can say that with confidence because Libertarians and others who obey the Constitution would not cite the flawed precedents their Republican and Democrat peers always do, nor would they legislate from the bench. Libertarian judges would be bound by their oath to point out the fallacies in previous precedents rather than use these precedents as guidance.

So, I reiterate, cases like the Boy Scouts of America's (successful) attempt to retain their First Amendment rights of Freedom of Association and Freedom of Religion are at stake when the U.S. Senate (and White House) changes hands.

Wasn't that decision 5-4? If so how many of those on the losing side were appointed by Republican presidents and/or confirmed by Republican Senates?