I'm not sure how this got past everyone.

Abortion is here to stay forever.

The term is "settled law", and you obviously do not know what it means.

As for Kavanaugh, he opined last year that an undocumented teen could be denied access to an abortion for as long as she was in federal custody. This does not fit very well with your thesis above.

Ralph Maddow told us last night that Cavanaugh will prevent every woman from ever having another abortion forever and that he hates fags and niggers and we have to protest against him.

Thank you for offering your comedic insight.

Stare decisis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The term is "settled law", and you obviously do
> not know what it means.
>
> As for Kavanaugh, he opined last year that an
> undocumented teen could be denied access to an
> abortion for as long as she was in federal
> custody. This does not fit very well with your
> thesis above.

Howz it feel, libtard?

It seels fine as usual. Obviously smart people routinely soar over the heads of such feeble and incapacitous little gerbils as yourself.

Stare decisis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It seels fine as usual. Obviously smart people
> routinely soar over the heads of such feeble and
> incapacitous little gerbils as yourself.

If you hadn't been a fag and supported corrupt Hillary, we'd have a different court.

Sorry you had to be a sheep.

Your fly is open. Better zip it up before what's left of your brains falls out.

Meanwhile, Kavanaugh did indeed opine last year that an undocumented teen could be denied access to an abortion for as long as she was in federal custody. This of course is the first that a closeted derp like you would have heard of the case, much less Kavanaugh's part in it.

Stare decisis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your fly is open. Better zip it up before what's
> left of your brains falls out.
>
> Meanwhile, Kavanaugh did indeed opine last year
> that an undocumented teen could be denied access
> to an abortion for as long as she was in federal
> custody. This of course is the first that a
> closeted derp like you would have heard of the
> case, much less Kavanaugh's part in it.


And you sit home and cry. Must suck to have thrown away the Supreme Court for 20 years. Should have ditched Hillary, but you were too fucking stubborn.

If your niece can't get an abortion, it's your fault.

^^^ You should have zipped more quickly. Worse yet, you never did have any means of competing here.

Stare decisis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^^^ You should have zipped more quickly. Worse
> yet, you never did have any means of competing
> here.

Won in November 2016, won in Supreme Court last week, won last night.

Go play with your dick loser, we're the Captain now.

So amusing to hear the left insist in virtually the same breath that that ours is a "living Constitution" yet Roe v. Wade is "settled law".

What do liberals not understand that settled law means "their is a individual right to bear arms"

If they can keep up the bitch contest saying the 2nd only applies to National Guard units that did not exist when the 2nd was written, Then Roe Vs Wade can be overturned as well

Why is there such despicable perversion and attention that liberals show to these things when they are attempting to justify their deranged political thoughts

Very truly disturbed liberals with a serious mental illness

Stare decisis this Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Won in November 2016, won in Supreme Court last
> week, won last night.

You were apparently a loser at birth and have made no progress since.

both sides of the mouth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So amusing to hear the left insist in virtually
> the same breath that that ours is a "living
> Constitution" yet Roe v. Wade is "settled law".

Not the same thing, dummy.

Which makes you a total loser in life with no hope of redemption

Stare decisis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your fly is open. Better zip it up before what's
> left of your brains falls out.
>
> Meanwhile, Kavanaugh did indeed opine last year
> that an undocumented teen could be denied access
> to an abortion for as long as she was in federal
> custody. This of course is the first that a
> closeted derp like you would have heard of the
> case, much less Kavanaugh's part in it.

Did he conclude that she could never have an abortion?

Settled Law Or Libtard Law Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What do liberals not understand that settled law
> means "their is a individual right to bear arms"

There was never an individual right prior to 2008. Scalia simply decided out of thin air that there should be one. That’s the right-wing way.
>
> If they can keep up the bitch contest saying the
> 2nd only applies to National Guard units that did
> not exist when the 2nd was written, Then Roe the Vs
> Wade can be overturned as well.

The 2nd Amendment was part of the slave compromises needed to get the Constitution ratified.

Stare decisis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Settled Law Or Libtard Law Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> There was never an individual right prior to 2008.
> Scalia simply decided out of thin air that there
> should be one. That’s the right-wing way.

Sure there was.

> The 2nd Amendment was part of the slave
> compromises needed to get the Constitution
> ratified.

Perhaps it was a secondary purpose in the minds of some, but it was not the primary reason in the minds of many for ratification.

do the process Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stare decisis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Your fly is open. Better zip it up before
> what's
> > left of your brains falls out.
> >
> > Meanwhile, Kavanaugh did indeed opine last year
> > that an undocumented teen could be denied
> access
> > to an abortion for as long as she was in
> federal
> > custody. This of course is the first that a
> > closeted derp like you would have heard of the
> > case, much less Kavanaugh's part in it.
>
> Did he conclude that she could never have an
> abortion?

Do you like ketchup on your cheese burgers?
[Just a further example of an irrelevant question.]

And the topic is how badly libtards fucked up in 2016.

Who's court? Our court!

Stare decisis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> do the process Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Stare decisis Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Your fly is open. Better zip it up before
> > what's
> > > left of your brains falls out.
> > >
> > > Meanwhile, Kavanaugh did indeed opine last
> year
> > > that an undocumented teen could be denied
> > access
> > > to an abortion for as long as she was in
> > federal
> > > custody. This of course is the first that a
> > > closeted derp like you would have heard of
> the
> > > case, much less Kavanaugh's part in it.
> >
> > Did he conclude that she could never have an
> > abortion?
>
> Do you like ketchup on your cheese burgers?
> [Just a further example of an irrelevant
> question.]


That's a cute little deflection, but it doesn't answer the very relevant question presented to you. Your refusal to answer it is further evidence of your intellectual dishonesty on the topic. Facts of a case and of a judicial decision matter.

Did he conclude that she could never have an abortion?

He ruled that the Constitutional right to abortion could be indefinitely abrogated simply by placing a woman in federal custody. Of course, that was in a panel decision that was trashed en banc.

Stare decisis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He ruled that the Constitutional right to abortion
> could be indefinitely abrogated simply by placing
> a woman in federal custody. Of course, that was in
> a panel decision that was trashed en banc.


Indefinitely? Can't the minor be released to the custody of a sponsor without any undue burden? In fact, didn't the decision require the process of
securing a sponsor to whom the minor is released occur expeditiously?

The panel ruling in Garza v Hargan was vacated en banc. What was significant in it was Kavanaugh’s willingness to see Constitutional rights put to tatters by the vagaries of an abusive executive.

Stare decisis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The panel ruling in Garza v Hargan was vacated en
> banc. What was significant in it was Kavanaugh’s
> willingness to see Constitutional rights put to
> tatters by the vagaries of an abusive executive.


It is duly noted that you refused to answer the question. Probably because an answer would directly refute your previous statement.

That being said, no Constitutional right was even remotely jeopardized by the three judge order. The Supreme Court has long held that the Government has permissible interests in favoring fetal life, protecting the best interests of a minor, and refraining from facilitating abortion. Those standards being met, the order set out the parameters for which the minor illegal immigrant could obtain an abortion.

Dred Scott too was rightly decided and 'settled law'.

Sparks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dred Scott too was rightly decided and 'settled
> law'.


And it took an amendment to overturn it.

Grim reaper knock knock knockin on ginsburgs door....
SCOTUS 7-2 by 2020!

Libs Put all your bets on :

1. Fake Native American warren

2. Communist from Vermont

3. Foul mouthed Kamala

4. Nigger from Newark that made facebook’s $1mil donation disappear
Attachments:

Hill's got some sexy cankles

Roe Vs Wade is not even a issue with SCOTUS, the Democrats have nothing, they cant stop Trumps appt, so they are desperately trying to make a issue of Roe as a scare tactic.

We The People Know Better Confirm Kavanaugh

do the process Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That being said, no Constitutional right was even
> remotely jeopardized by the three judge order.

Yet the full court reversed, ordering "immediate" action to release the victim and allow her access to an abortion in accordance with her right.

> The Supreme Court has long held that the Government has
> permissible interests in favoring fetal life, protecting
> the best interests of a minor, and refraining from
> facilitating abortion.

Those "permissible interests" are not grounds to support an undue burden on women seeking an abortion. The subject HHS order stated that federally funded shelters were forbidden to take any action that facilitated an abortion without the express approval of ORR Director Scott Lloyd. Establishing such a solitary gatekeeper was impermissible from the outset.

> Those standards being met, the order set out the parameters for
> which the minor illegal immigrant could obtain an abortion.

The standards met were those of the full court, not those of the Kavanaugh panel.

And again, What was actually significant in this case was Kavanaugh’s reversed willingness to see an individual's Constitutional rights shredded in deference to the vagaries of an abusive executive. The implications for any sort of restraints on the current chief executive should be obvious -- so obvious as to suggest that the Kavanaugh nomination may be no more than a clumsy effort at self-preservation.

Stare decisis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> do the process Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That being said, no Constitutional right was
> even
> > remotely jeopardized by the three judge order.
>
> Yet the full court reversed, ordering "immediate"
> action to release the victim and allow her access
> to an abortion in accordance with her right.
>
> > The Supreme Court has long held that the
> Government has
> > permissible interests in favoring fetal life,
> protecting
> > the best interests of a minor, and refraining
> from
> > facilitating abortion.
>
> Those "permissible interests" are not grounds to
> support an undue burden on women seeking an
> abortion. The subject HHS order stated that
> federally funded shelters were forbidden to take
> any action that facilitated an abortion without
> the express approval of ORR Director Scott Lloyd.
> Establishing such a solitary gatekeeper was
> impermissible from the outset.
>
> > Those standards being met, the order set out the
> parameters for
> > which the minor illegal immigrant could obtain
> an abortion.
>
> The standards met were those of the full court,
> not those of the Kavanaugh panel.
>
> And again, What was actually significant in this
> case was Kavanaugh’s reversed willingness to see
> an individual's Constitutional rights shredded in
> deference to the vagaries of an abusive executive.
> The implications for any sort of restraints on
> the current chief executive should be obvious --
> so obvious as to suggest that the Kavanaugh
> nomination may be no more than a clumsy effort at
> self-preservation.


I bet you thought the 9th circuit and Kunt Klinton Kollaborator Sally Yates had it all right with their reckless demagogary and Constitution shredding. I bet you still think those libtard assholes are fit jurists. LOL

You're probably a law school flunk out. Co.e over and walk my dog, I'll tip you $10, loser.

Travel ban upheld by SCOTUS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I bet you thought the 9th circuit and Kunt Klinton
> Kollaborator Sally Yates had it all right with
> their reckless demagogary and Constitution
> shredding. I bet you still think those libtard
> assholes are fit jurists. LOL You're probably a
> law school flunk out. Co.e over and walk my dog,
> I'll tip you $10, loser.

People like you are the worst of America on parade. Too stupid to understand how pathetically stupid you are.

IQ < 50 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Travel ban upheld by SCOTUS Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I bet you thought the 9th circuit and Kunt
> Klinton
> > Kollaborator Sally Yates had it all right with
> > their reckless demagogary and Constitution
> > shredding. I bet you still think those libtard
> > assholes are fit jurists. LOL You're probably a
>
> > law school flunk out. Co.e over and walk my dog,
>
> > I'll tip you $10, loser.
>
> People like you are the worst of America on
> parade. Too stupid to understand how pathetically
> stupid you are.


Because different judges have different opinions? I get it, you don't. You're a partisan crybaby. Wah!

Now come walk my dog already and don't be stoned this time.

The law does not change with personal opinions. Your post again marks you as being abysmally stupid. I suspect that this dog of yours would be more clever.

NiggerWhipper 5000 mechanic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ralph Maddow told us last night that Cavanaugh
> will prevent every woman from ever having another
> abortion forever and that he hates fags and
> niggers and we have to protest against him.


Excellent point! The constitutional right to an abortion was found in the 14th amendment. Let's review the 14th amendment and see how anyone could come to the conclusion that Kavanaugh came to shall we.....

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Now, which part of the "citizen of the US" is an illegal immigrant part of? Faggot!

IQ < 50 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The law does not change with personal opinions.
> Your post again marks you as being abysmally
> stupid. I suspect that this dog of yours would be
> more clever.


No, the law is the law of the land. Now look how fucktard partisan all the Dems who opposed the Travel Ban are.

The Travel Ban is the law of the land and every liberal "legal expert" who said it was unconstitutional has proven himself a traitor.

Walk my dog, walk my dog you fucking armchair lawyer.

Walk my dog, pussy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> IQ < 50 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The law does not change with personal opinions.
> > Your post again marks you as being abysmally
> > stupid. I suspect that this dog of yours would
> be
> > more clever.
>
>
> No, the law is the law of the land. Now look how
> fucktard partisan all the Dems who opposed the
> Travel Ban are.
>
> The Travel Ban is the law of the land and every
> liberal "legal expert" who said it was
> unconstitutional has proven himself a traitor.
>
> Walk my dog, walk my dog you fucking armchair
> lawyer.


Don't bother. You are arguing with Gerry's gay protector. He will either ignore cited facts you post or, if you don't cite overwhelming authoritative sources, he'll dispute everything and post and go back to whatever drivel you are responding to. Then he'll post that you're stupid, a racist, a nazi, etc...

He is the textbook definition of a troll. Don't feed him unless you're doing it for your own amusement.

Too smart by ½ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NiggerWhipper 5000 mechanic Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ralph Maddow told us last night that Cavanaugh
> > will prevent every woman from ever having
> another
> > abortion forever and that he hates fags and
> > niggers and we have to protest against him.
>
>
> Excellent point! The constitutional right to an
> abortion was found in the 14th amendment. Let's
> review the 14th amendment and see how anyone could
> come to the conclusion that Kavanaugh came
> to shall we.....
>
> "All persons born or naturalized in the United
> States and subject to the jurisdiction
> thereof, are citizens of the United States
> and of the State wherein they reside. No State
> shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
> the privileges or immunities of citizens of
> the United States; nor shall any State deprive any
> person of life, liberty, or property, without due
> process of law; nor deny to any person within its
> jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
>
> Now, which part of the "citizen of the US" is an
> illegal immigrant part of? Faggot!

Constitutional rights attach to all those subject to US jurisdiction, whether those are citizens or not.

Walk my dog, pussy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> IQ < 50 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The law does not change with personal opinions.
> > Your post again marks you as being abysmally
> > stupid. I suspect that this dog of yours would
> be
> > more clever.
>
>
> No, the law is the law of the land. Now look how
> fucktard partisan all the Dems who opposed the
> Travel Ban are.
>
> The Travel Ban is the law of the land and every
> liberal "legal expert" who said it was
> unconstitutional has proven himself a traitor.
>
> Walk my dog, walk my dog you fucking armchair
> lawyer.

LOL! Travel Ban 1.0 was shot down. Travel Ban 2.0 was shot down. Not Actually A Travel Ban 3.0 was allowed on a trial basis.

Hey ass-clown... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Too smart by ½ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > NiggerWhipper 5000 mechanic Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Ralph Maddow told us last night that
> Cavanaugh
> > > will prevent every woman from ever having
> > another
> > > abortion forever and that he hates fags and
> > > niggers and we have to protest against him.
> >
> >
> > Excellent point! The constitutional right to
> an
> > abortion was found in the 14th amendment.
> Let's
> > review the 14th amendment and see how anyone
> could
> > come to the conclusion that Kavanaugh
> came
> > to shall we.....
> >
> > "All persons born or naturalized in the
> United
> > States and subject to the jurisdiction
> > thereof, are citizens of the United
> States
> > and of the State wherein they reside. No State
> > shall make or enforce any law which shall
> abridge
> > the privileges or immunities of citizens
> of
> > the United States; nor shall any State deprive
> any
> > person of life, liberty, or property, without
> due
> > process of law; nor deny to any person within
> its
> > jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
> >
> > Now, which part of the "citizen of the US" is
> an
> > illegal immigrant part of? Faggot!
>
> Constitutional rights attach to all those subject
> to US jurisdiction, whether those are citizens or
> not.


So wrong. You think illegals can carry a firearm in Virginia? Please tell us you don't vote. Retarded morons such as you drag this whole country down.

Libtard Feel Goodness, like like like like like like brain dead weak tards trying to outdo one another on who's the most sensitive and liberal because there so stupid they think that's popular

Bzzzzzzzt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So wrong. You think illegals can carry a firearm in
> Virginia? Please tell us you don't vote. Retarded morons
> such as you drag this whole country down.

When under US jurisdiction, legal and illegal aliens enjoy the same constitutional protections as American citizens with three current exceptions: voting, some government jobs, and gun ownership. These are all however in some measure of doubt.

Matter of fact Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bzzzzzzzt Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So wrong. You think illegals can carry a
> firearm in
> > Virginia? Please tell us you don't vote.
> Retarded morons
> > such as you drag this whole country down.
>
> When under US jurisdiction, legal and illegal
> aliens enjoy the same constitutional protections
> as American citizens with three current
> exceptions: voting, some government jobs, and gun
> ownership. These are all however in some measure
> of doubt.


Nonsense. The liberal interpretation of our laws (that whenever the term 'citizen' isn't used, then it applies to anyone and everyone) is going to quickly come to an end. People like Kavanaugh will be a part of doing that. Very few issues to settle his have made it to the SCOTUS. Trump is going to make sure that now they do. Once and for all, US laws will apply to anyone and everyone that wants to play with us and US rights will only apply to US citizens unless specifically granted through law. That's the right thing to do. That's the right way to do it. Why are you libs so afraid to do things the right way (through laws, not edicts)? Judges are mostly partisan asshole lawyers who know the right people and donate to the right politicians. I wouldn't trust them anymore than my car mechanic when it comes to common sense or integrity.

The laws in this case say “persons”, not “citizens.” It must be that something was meant by that choice.

Why all the griping? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not sure how this got past everyone.
>
> Abortion is here to stay forever.


Close your legs and open your mouth and you will never need an abortion.

^^^ Nothing fails like prayer and other sorts of stupid shit.

Idiot... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The laws in this case say “persons”, not
> “citizens.” It must be that something was
> meant by that choice.


Kavanaugh will settle it. Don't get your panties in a wad there little fella. 5-4 will be the ruling and illegals and non-citizens will get exactly what they deserve from the US - NOTHING. We'll still be a generous people, but we'll be putting our needy and sick and poor above the rest of the world when it comes to our resources. How can any American be against that?

So you HATE the Constitution? What a fine American!

There’s a lot of America-hating on the right-wing.

Shit lib , Illegals are ILLEGAL Not Citizens Not Natural born or Naturalized asswipe whiner crying for votes for Democrats despite any risks to America

And Illegals better not be counted in the 2020 census to get more Democrat reps in Congress, there Illegal, So YOU HATE THE CONSTITUTION AND AMERICA What a rotten stupid asshole out for a vote

The operative word here is PERSON!!!

They are not natural born or naturalized, what do you not understand they are in the USA illegally and are they are persons who are illegally in the USA not to be counted as persons in any census for extra Democrat votes or money on their behalf to states where they are at

ILLEGALS ARE ILLEGAL NOT UNDOCUMENTED ANYTHING

if you read Roe v. Wade

7/9 reasonings are complete jibberish - 2 actually make sense but are incorrect

jibberish does not make for a Constitutional Ammendment

the Supreme Court has the Power of Veto, not the power to Legislate

OP is a HISPANIC INQUEST LAW HACK

inquest law is always decided by rich families who members are actually acting as judges. inquest law is a totally corrupt law system

nothing justifies death

however religious zealots seek the death penalty for abortion which is only Questionably death (a question that cannot be answered - what term what phase). infact isn't it death to intently avoid birth by using contraceptives, by killing off female eggs and male sperm with prejudice?

----------------------------

the truth which was never mentioned in the reasoning is:

zealots seek the death penalty on a matter possibly not even illegal

(THE CORRECT RULING IS THAT THERE IS NO "IN-BETWEEN", if the court declares it illegal they can then not protect the innocent by saying "it's not very illegal it's not _that illegal", because the bank door on killing people will already be open, and interpretation by each state will become mixed)

if you wish to make progress against abortion you'll have to do so without facist police

(you cannot put a gun to the head to everyone involved not in your same opinion, which is exactly what a Court does: it says you will do this exactly, and if you don't we'll imprison you, and if you resist the cop will shoot you)

the above is CRIMINAL LAW, which is fine and dandy if your prosecuting a bank robber with blood on his hands, since really we wouldn't mind killing them right off anyhow

HOWEVER - many courts now list EVERY LAW as CRIMINAL 'misdemeanor'. the 'misdemeanor' part IS A HUGE FUCKING LIE of facism

these laws used to be under Civil Law, and under Civil law it is not allowed to use weapons. seizure of goods is the maxium penalty, but seizure of one's last stand (the bed they sleep in) had not been allowed

Harvard teaches "every law is criminal" because they are fucking criminal facist government types who

#1 are selling off USA to china and need guns to protect the public from discovering their crimes or prosecuting them for it

#2 are rich political families who rule by the sword, everything they say can be enforced with weapons

OMG..: Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^^^ Nothing fails like prayer and other sorts of
> stupid shit.


Nobody even mentions prayer but the libcucks who need a strawman. Pathetic fake losers!

“Nothing Fails Like Prayer” is from pop culture.

Kavanaugh did not rule that a 17 year old illegal immigrant could not have an abortion. He did rule that the Government was not obliged to pay for the procedure. I think that this distinction is significant, whether or not you agree with it. Lots of low information voters out there.

I have started reading a few of his opinions. Oddly, while conservative, he is as not as conservative as many conservatives would like. In an Affordable Care Act decision, he dissented, claiming the plaintiff lacked jurisdiction. His opinion was predicated on the fact that the plaintiff should have, under the terms of the Anti-Injunction Act, paid the ACA "tax" as required for federal court jurisdiction. In other words, in his dissent, he adopted the view of Justice Roberts that the compelled payments were a tax rather than a penalty, the linchpin of Roberts' ruling (odd for an averred statutory textualist because the statute referred to the payment as a penalty). In any event, I think it takes a lot of reading to get a grip on this Kavanaugh - he seems very adept politically, which no doubt will help him.

stare decisis is wrong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kavanaugh did not rule that a 17 year old illegal
> immigrant could not have an abortion. He did rule
> that the Government was not obliged to pay for the
> procedure. I think that this distinction is
> significant, whether or not you agree with it.
> Lots of low information voters out there.
>
> I have started reading a few of his opinions.
> Oddly, while conservative, he is as not as
> conservative as many conservatives would like. In
> an Affordable Care Act decision, he dissented,
> claiming the plaintiff lacked jurisdiction. His
> opinion was predicated on the fact that the
> plaintiff should have, under the terms of the
> Anti-Injunction Act, paid the ACA "tax" as
> required for federal court jurisdiction. In other
> words, in his dissent, he adopted the view of
> Justice Roberts that the compelled payments were a
> tax rather than a penalty, the linchpin of
> Roberts' ruling (odd for an averred statutory
> textualist because the statute referred to the
> payment as a penalty). In any event, I think it
> takes a lot of reading to get a grip on this
> Kavanaugh - he seems very adept politically, which
> no doubt will help him.


What else you got from all that reading other than the Obamacare decision that has already been widely reported and dissected on FoxNews, talk radio, and even the Washington Post? Everyone has already heard about his ACA dissent. Got any other non-conservative opinions that aren't already in the news?

Pay more attention Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> “Nothing Fails Like Prayer” is from pop
> culture.

Sounds as lame as you.

You see where this is going . Under the guise of being legal scholars the left is propagandizing the 2nd in the Bill of Rights and the Electoral College by making people think the 2nd and the E.C are illegitimate because of slavery. A obvious attempt to gain support to get rid of both

Next week the entire Constitution will be illegitimate to them because of the same reason

The Constitution and Bill of Rights : They are what they are, and they are the law of the land.

Pay more attention Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> “Nothing Fails Like Prayer” is from pop
> culture.


Lame pop culture. Who the fuck pays attention to that shit? I had to Google it. You pay attention to that old freak?

The most dangerous place for a nigger is in the womb

stare decisis is wrong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kavanaugh did not rule that a 17 year old illegal
> immigrant could not have an abortion.

Of course not. He did however rule that she could be denied an abortion for up to so long as she remained in federal custody.

> He did rule that the Government was not obliged to
> pay for the procedure.

Not in Garza v Hargan, You may have wrongly assumed that the word "facilitate" referred to payment.

> Lots of low information voters out there.

Many indeed have been confused by FOX News hogwash and many as well by drivel coming directly from the Trump administration.

> I have started reading a few of his opinions.
> Oddly, while conservative, he is as not as
> conservative as many conservatives would like.

He is insufficiently Taliban-like, in their view.

> In an Affordable Care Act decision, he dissented,
> claiming the plaintiff lacked jurisdiction.

LOL! Jurisdiction is something that courts either have or don't have. I submit that you do not know what you are talking about.

In any case, the ACA case that has so far come up most often re Kavanaugh is Seven Sky v Holder, where he rejected a complaint against the ACA's individual mandate because that mandate had not yet gone into effect, meaning that there was yet no harm that the courts could act to remedy. You may have missed all that.

No attention needed. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lame pop culture. Who the fuck pays attention to
> that shit? I had to Google it. You pay attention
> to that old freak?

You shouldn't have needed Google at all. Among other references, there are plenty of “Nothing Fails Like Prayer” bumper stickers out there to get stuck behind.

Matter of fact Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bzzzzzzzt Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So wrong. You think illegals can carry a
> firearm in
> > Virginia? Please tell us you don't vote.
> Retarded morons
> > such as you drag this whole country down.
>
> When under US jurisdiction, legal and illegal
> aliens enjoy the same constitutional protections
> as American citizens with three current
> exceptions: voting, some government jobs, and gun
> ownership. These are all however in some measure
> of doubt.

Wrong, certain first amendment rights are also not available to immigrants.

I notice you didn’t name any of those. Did you want a second chance, or would you just as soon avoid the resulting smack-down?

Is one got to do with a radio broadcast license, or ham set license

I do know that legal green card holders can buy firearms, at least they could 30 years ago

Remember all the TV pundits on CNN and MSNBC yakking on and on about how the travel ban was racist and unconstitutional?

It's settled law now, the president has the executive authority to keep any undesirables out.

The law for liberals is just a fantasy. They have no idea WTF.

The ban was struck down and then struck down again. A non-ban was then allowed on a conditional basis as justices turned a blind eye to a plain racist basis. As “settled law” the decision my not last out the year.

Try again, asshole Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The ban was struck down and then struck down
> again. A non-ban was then allowed on a conditional
> basis as justices turned a blind eye to a plain
> racist basis. As “settled law” the decision
> my not last out the year.


Yes, it's racist to keep shitty Somalis and Syrian ISIS freaks out of the country.

You're a real shining star there,

How did you become THAT STUPID!

You’d be wrong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I notice you didn’t name any of those. Did you
> want a second chance, or would you just as soon
> avoid the resulting smack-down?


No second chance needed. You walked right into it and here is your smack-down.

Spending money on political campaigns is a core first amendment activity as affirmed by the Supreme Court.

In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from the following activities:

•Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States;

•Making any contribution or donation to any committee or organization of any national, state, district, or local political party (including donations to a party nonfederal account or office building account);

•Making any disbursement for an electioneering communication;

•Making any donation to a presidential inaugural committee.


I assume you'll wriggle away in shame now that your ass has been handed to you.

LOL!!! So your assfuck argument now hinges on specious identity between speech and expenditure and between resident aliens and foreign nationals. What a total fucking catastrophe! Here again are the fucking facts, you ridiculous dumbfuck...

> When under US jurisdiction, legal and illegal aliens
> enjoy the same constitutional protections as American
> citizens with three current exceptions: voting, some
> government jobs, and gun ownership. These are all
> however in some measure of doubt.

You'd be wronger than ever Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL!!! So your assfuck argument now hinges on
> specious identity between speech and expenditure
> and between resident aliens and foreign nationals.
> What a total fucking catastrophe! Here again are
> the fucking facts, you ridiculous dumbfuck...

Specious?

It's stare decisis, dumbfuck.

Buckley v. Valeo
Citizens United v. FEC
McCutcheon v. FEC

A resident alien is a foreign national, dope. A foreign national is also a non-resident alien, dope. A foreign national is defined simply as "an individual who is a citizen of any country other than the United States." That's all it is. Your feeble attempt to distract and deflect is a crock of shit - just like you.

You just got your ass handed to you. Slink away in shame. It's the only respectable move you have left because we both know you aren't man enough to admit you were wrong.

You have no education or experience in the relevant law at all. This is why you fail to understand the role and importance of the word “jurisdiction” and think that confabulated yahoo semantics will somehow be enough to get you by.

Even more wrongerer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You have no education or experience in the
> relevant law at all. This is why you fail to
> understand the role and importance of the word
> “jurisdiction” and think that confabulated
> yahoo semantics will somehow be enough to get you
> by.


Damn, dummy, you had the opportunity to slink away like the coward you are, but you decided to come back with this garbage?

Would you like to discuss in rem or in personam jurisdiction in our courts? Because your nonsensical babbling on about it proves you know nothing of it.

Now that we've established that foreign national is the proper term to use here, let's see just how dumb you are.

Can a foreign national legally make contribution or donation of money or other thing of value in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States? Yes or no.

Hint: See 52 U.S.C. 30121

Trust me when I assure you that my education and experience in these matters are far superior to yours or anyone you know.

Lol! You're a low-grade legal flunkie. A degree from the FAO Schwartz School of Law would be a better credential than any you have. Here again meanwhile are the FACTS OF THE MATTER that you wish you could somehow run away from...

> When under US jurisdiction, legal and illegal aliens
> enjoy the same constitutional protections as American
> citizens with three current exceptions: voting, some
> government jobs, and gun ownership. These are all
> however in some measure of doubt.

Suck on that bit of well-established law, you worthless little ass-troll.

Wrongerer dumbfuck fails Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lol! You're a low-grade legal flunkie. A degree
> from the FAO Schwartz School of Law would be a
> better credential than any you have. Here again
> meanwhile are the FACTS OF THE MATTER that you
> wish you could somehow run away from...

Your "facts" are incomplete and inaccurate as shown below.

> > When under US jurisdiction, legal and illegal
> aliens
> > enjoy the same constitutional protections as
> American
> > citizens with three current exceptions: voting,
> some
> > government jobs, and gun ownership. These are
> all
> > however in some measure of doubt.
>
> Suck on that bit of well-established law, you
> worthless little ass-troll.


Look at that when presented with a simple yes or no question, you can't or won't answer it. Why is that?

But, let's examine your simpleton's observation.

> When under US jurisdiction,

This is a term you don't seem too familiar with. Jurisdiction has many forms. For instance, certain detainees located in Guantanamo Bay are technically under US jurisdiction. Other detainees located in various facilities around the United States are also under the jurisdiction. You fumbling away in your mom's basement are also under the jurisdiction of the United States.

In any event, it is really immaterial to the lesson I am teaching you.

> legal and illegal aliens

Legal and illegal aliens are both foreign nationals. I realize you just learned this today.

> enjoy the same constitutional protections as American
> citizens with three current exceptions: voting, some
> government jobs, and gun ownership.

Your answer was incomplete. I simply provided people with a more fulsome and correct answer. You answer, like probably many aspects of your life, was lacking.

Foreign nationals are also prohibited by statute from making contribution or donating money or other thing of value in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States. This is a constitutionally protected activity under the first amendment as recognized by the United States Supreme Court on multiple occasions.

Also, as long as we are pointing out your errors, I would be remiss to not correct your mistakes on gun ownership by foreign nationals. An alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing a firearm or ammunition unless the alien falls within one of the exceptions provided in 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(2), such as: a valid hunting license or permit, admitted for lawful hunting or sporting purposes, certain official representatives of a foreign government, or a foreign law enforcement officer of a friendly foreign government entering the United States on official law enforcement business.

Further, lawful permanent residents are permitted by law to own a firearm presuming they are not prohibited by another section of 922(g).

> These are all
> however in some measure of doubt.

Some are and some are much more clear. Too bad we can't say the same for you.

Now, don't be a coward and answer the question. Can a foreign national legally make contribution or donation of money or other thing of value in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States? Yes or no.

If you were smarter, you'd be embarrassed at how dumb I am making you look.

The question —- as with so much of your hapless posting —- is entirely irrelevant. Just another part of a failed from the outset effort to run away from actual law and fact, all of which of course was relevant to those in Gitmo.

Wrongerer falls flat on Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The question —- as with so much of your hapless
> posting —- is entirely irrelevant.

Simply because you're a chicken shit coward and won't answer the question doesn't make it irrelevant.

It's relevant because the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that making campaign donations is activity explicitly protected by the first amendment.

Your refusal to answer is both proof of your cowardice and proof that its relevant.


> Just another
> part of a failed from the outset effort to run
> away from actual law and fact, all of which of
> course was relevant to those in Gitmo.

Dope, I had to teach you about law and fact on multiple occasions. Your flawed analysis missed on many points. You were wrong stating that "legal aliens" don't have Constitutional rights related to gun ownership. I had to correct you on which aliens can own firearms in the United States. You also failed to mention that foreign nationals aka aliens don't enjoy certain first amendment protections such as the ability to donate to political campaigns. If you don't consider that a protected first amendment activity, I'd suggest you read any of the aforementioned SCOTUS decisions to set you righ on that.

Because you can't refute a single thing written here, you're going to come back with a bullshit ad hominem. Due to your stupidity, that's all you have left. After that, I'll give you yet another ass whooping just as I've done here.

Want to try and man up and answer the relevant question or are you dead set on remaining a dickless coward?

An entertaining though rather lopsided discussion. The principle that aliens of any sort who come under US jurisdiction by any means are in fact covered and protected by the US Constitution on a basis level with that of US citizens has been established law for well more than a hundred years.

See such seminal cases as Yick Wo v Hopkins (1886) and Wong Win v US (1896). Find rights of procedural due process being added to those of substantive due process in Yamataya v Fisher (1903). More recently, see such cases as Almeida-Sanchez v US (1973), Plyler v Doe (1982), and Zadvydas v Davis (2001).

Though these cases are hardly alone in the annals of the law, they alone do quite easily suffice to dispel the vagrant right-wing myth that only citizens enjoy Constitutional protections and privileges.

Why all the griping? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not sure how this got past everyone.
>
> Abortion is here to stay forever.


They said the same thing about Jim Crow laws, but you see how that worked out.

Many here would presumably like to bring Jim Crow laws back. And then expand them to cover non-whites generally.

Nota bene Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> An entertaining though rather lopsided discussion.
> The principle that aliens of any sort who come
> under US jurisdiction by any means are in fact
> covered and protected by the US Constitution on a
> basis level with that of US citizens has been
> established law for well more than a hundred
> years.
>
> See such seminal cases as Yick Wo v Hopkins (1886)
> and Wong Win v US (1896). Find rights of
> procedural due process being added to those of
> substantive due process in Yamataya v Fisher
> (1903). More recently, see such cases as
> Almeida-Sanchez v US (1973), Plyler v Doe (1982),
> and Zadvydas v Davis (2001).
>
> Though these cases are hardly alone in the annals
> of the law, they alone do quite easily suffice to
> dispel the vagrant right-wing myth that only
> citizens enjoy Constitutional protections and
> privileges.


Coming back two days later under a different name doesn't redeem your previous failures.

You are correct though, it was completely lopsided. Not once, did you ever stand a chance. Simply naming a few cases that grants certain Constitutional rights to certain non-citizens does NOTHING to bolster your case.

Note that it was never contended that foreign nationals possess no constitutional rights at all.

It was only contended, and proven I might add, that certain foreign nationals are not afforded certain rights guaranteed to citizens under the Constitution.

We've even gone over what rights are not enjoyed by certain foreign nationals. Namely, voting, certain gun rights and certain first amendment activities related to campaign and election activity.

If you'd like to explore those further, I am more than happy to give you yet another beat down.

Lol. You are too full of yourself to engage in a coherent conversation.

Nora bene Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lol. You are too full of yourself to engage in a
> coherent conversation.

you came back for a beat down Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because you can't refute a single thing written
> here, you're going to come back with a bullshit ad
> hominem. Due to your stupidity, that's all you
> have left. After that, I'll give you yet another
> ass whooping just as I've done here.

Amazing how I correctly predicted that two days ago. Thanks for proving me right!

You paint yourself as the hobo coming to the back door hoping to get work in exchange for a sandwich. The facts of alien rights have been settled law for more than a century. Your immaturity will not change the established world that simply dismisses you outright.

Note bene Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You paint yourself as the hobo coming to the back
> door hoping to get work in exchange for a
> sandwich. The facts of alien rights have been
> settled law for more than a century. Your
> immaturity will not change the established world
> that simply dismisses you outright.


As noted, they possess some rights and they don't have others. You incorrectly asserted that "legal and illegal aliens enjoy the same constitutional protections as American citizens with three current exceptions: voting, some government jobs, and gun ownership."

Because it was inaccurate, I set the record straight regarding your inaccuracies related to firearm possession by aliens. I also pointed out that you omitted the fact that aliens do not possess first amendment rights related to campaign activity.

You can't dispute either one of those very basic facts. Are you stubborn or stupid? Those are you're only two options left.

Instead of acting like a petulant little child, you should be thanking me for educating you on these matters. But, you're too small of a man to do that.

you have not redeemed yourself Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Coming back two days later under a different name
> doesn't redeem your previous failures...


Standard Vienna Asshole practice... Sad old fucker can't sleep at night after having his dumb ass pwned. Eats at him 24/7. So he'll always come back and try to slip in a 'last word' post hoping that you won't notice. lmao

Me see heap big butthurt, Kemosabe.

Tonto say... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Me see heap big butthurt, Kemosabe.


A HUGE pile blocking your carport.

Yes... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tonto say... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Me see heap big butthurt, Kemosabe.
>
>
> A HUGE pile blocking your carport.


+1

He won't be able to see when the POS Town Car he ordered up arrives.

Bwahhahahahahahha.

The big dope's lame comeback in 3.......2.......1......

he's so dumb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Tonto say... Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Me see heap big butthurt, Kemosabe.
> >
> >
> > A HUGE pile blocking your carport.
>
>
> +1
>
> He won't be able to see when the POS Town Car he
> ordered up arrives.
>
> Bwahhahahahahahha.
>
> The big dope's lame comeback in
> 3.......2.......1......


His "exclusive" UberBlack!

lol!

Can't be overturned?

Of course Roe vs. Wade can be overturned. All he has to do is vote yes.