There has been no new evidence.
None whatsoever, only religious nut jobs put in office that rule based on what isn’t even religious doctrine and certainly is not US law, which is clear that embryos aren’t people, and women aren’t slaves nor incubators without rights over their own bodies.

It’s no surprise whatsoever that you’re fine with eradicating rights for women, or removing any rights you dislike others enjoying.

Of course you have no problem that each one intentionally perjured themselves during confirmation, because you don’t care one whit about crime if your team commits it, nor lies if they suit you. You’ve been abundantly clear about that, consistently.

Will you be fine when they reinterpret the second amendment to require strict regulations on militias, and they are the only non government entity with a right to OWN firearms, which can only be lent to licensed members that pass stringent testing bi yearly and screening and licensing at extremely high costs? Of course not, you’re a hypocrite.
Will you be fine when that new court declares flying a confederate flag is seditious treason and it’s retroactive, so old photos are enough to convict and execute?

You’ve had a conservative court for decades. Now you have one not interested in the law or science but only politics.

Of course, you’ll have no problem with Democrats adding 6 seats, ignoring all Republican whining and filling them with hyper liberal activist judges, and writing the law in a way that no more seats can be added without a constitutional amendment, then revisiting the issue in 6 months to get it right permanently. Don’t say we didn’t warn you.

Democrats are denied even a hearing for even their centrist picks (Garland) outrageously unconstitutionally, then Republicans pick FAR RIGHT politicos to replace moderate leftist judges. That was new, never before seen in our history.
Sotomayor and Karen are centrists, dumb shit. Kavenaugh and Barrett are extremist far right wingers….Barrett is barely even a judge, rushed in by a lame duck traitorous seditionist and his lackeys, directly contradicting their own excuse for not hearing Obama’s nomination. They actually admitted they rammed her through as fast as possible with the barest minimum of examination in order to pack the court in anticipation of them contesting the election results….admitted it before the election.
Kavenaugh and Barrett are both extremist Far right wingers, political activist judges, who lied in their confirmation, one is a multiple rapist, never investigated, the other a religious extremist with zero experience who said she would recuse herself on any issue of faith, but hasn’t recused herself from any.
Throw down the gauntlet?! Opposition to his nomination centered on his perceived willingness to roll back the civil rights rulings of the Warren and Burger courts, and his role in the Saturday Night Massacre during the Watergate scandal. On October 23, 1987, the Senate rejected Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court by a roll call vote of 42—58. Bork's margin of rejection by the Senate remains, by percentage, the third-largest on record and broke a 142-year record for largest defeat of a Supreme Court nomination. A historic immediate bipartisan rejection because he was totally unsuited, and had undeniably tried to help Nixon cover up Watergate as acting AG by firing the special prosecutor at Nixon’s direction (the AG and deputy AG had quit when Nixon insisted)….*.
Absolutely nothing similar to Obama being denied a hearing for his picks for a year until his term ended….*. Holy shit! What stupidity.

There are far fewer “conservatives” today, the Republican Party is 26% of the population, not a majority.

Yes, they are throwing cases to the packed court as fast as possible before their stolen majority evaporates. I support a 15 justice Supreme Court with a constitutional amendment halting any further additions without a 2/3 majority….add 6 hyper liberals…no judicial experience necessary or even preferred…AOC would be great.

Why bring a case you might lose? Because cases are supposed to be heard on their merits, not based on political affiliation you ignorant cow. You think the Supreme Court should be a political wing of the right, choosing and deciding cases based on political affiliation, not the law, science, common sense, ethics, or precedent….but only when it serves you.

So, gun rights should be up to states? That’s the next step if you win that fight…the constitution dies and states decide everything….as civil war erupts. Great plan, so patriotic. Remember, California is big enough that when they require fingerprint scanners on all guns sold in the state, manufacturers will add them to all guns….when semi auto guns are banned, manufacturers will move to single shot guns….just like auto manufacturers changed their cars to meet our requirements. Is that your plan? Had you even considered what individual states being in control means? It means California becomes the leader of America, controlling the other states by means of our size, wealth, and international clout. Enjoy.

Not like this, it hasn’t. Never in American history has the court been politicized and weaponized against the will of the majority to ignore precedent (contrary to their oaths and confirmation statements) in order to overturn established law and constitutional rights as a political act. Never.

Please don't misconstrue my abhorrence of today's republican party as an endorsement of the democratic party....but there's no question which is worse imo. I've said for decades that I would vote republican if only they would. I didn't leave the republican party, it left me.

'They weren't the only ones sticking it to democrats' isn't an argument, defense, or excuse...it's a dodge imo. Americans are allowed to participate in political propaganda (if they do it legally), other nations aren't. Russian intelligence hacked democrats at Trump's public request to help him. Period.

As for who is G2, "Working off the IP address, U.S. investigators identified Guccifer 2.0 as a particular GRU officer working out of the agency’s headquarters on Grizodubovoy Street in Moscow."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/exclusive-lone-dnc-hacker-guccifer-20-slipped-up-and-revealed-he-was-a-russian-intelligence-officer?ref=scroll

https://www.businessinsider.com/dnc-hacker-guccifer-confirmed-as-russian-agent-after-forgetting-to-conceal-identity-2018-3

I totally agree citizens United (i mean the court ruling bearing that name) put a poison pill in all of our political cups. I would support any candidate who I believed would make a constitutional amendment fixing that priority one, for any and every office high to low. Sadly i don't know of one from any party.
Selling our political system to corporations and billionaires can only end in it's demise.

Following on from above.

I didn't say you quoted me or anything about me. It was a "warning". My argument might have lead people to believe that I was against gun control. I gave the warning that it would be dumb to make any assumptions. I can't quite see how you missed this.

If you think it is not dumb to make assumptions, please let me know.

The 2A specifically says "arms". There is plenty of debate and case law regarding what arms they meant. Suffice to say there isn't a shadow of a doubt that it means firearms (long and short) of all varieties commonly available.

"doesn't mention anything about not restricting the types of armaments people can use"

It does restrict the government from making laws in this regard. The 2A is a law restricting government, not the people. "shall not be infringed" literally means you shall make no law that affects this right in any way.

You don't know whether advocates care if other arms are regulated. If I were to hazard a guess I'd say you are very wrong.

Gun control means whatever the group in control wants it to mean. Anything else is false. If they want it to mean taking away all of your guns, then that is what it is.

Constitutional amendments can indeed be changed. It is very, very difficult to do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Firstly I didn't quote you, I didn't assume anything about you, I didn't mention you or your previous comments at all.

Secondly the second amendment doesn't specify guns and doesn't mention anything about not restricting the types of armaments people can use. It's funny how many gun rights advocates don't care if their knives, tasers, knuckle dusters and pepper sprays are regulated and controlled.

Thirdly Gun control doesn't equate to taking all your guns away.

Lastly constitutional amendments can be repealed and changed.

Big difference

The TEA party wants to follow the Constitution.
All other groups don't.

How do the justice democrats line up with the Constitution?

I checked you link to the JD platform - Some are worthy but still most are Un constitutional BS feel good look nonsense .


Pass a constitutional amendment to put an end to Washington corruption and bring about election reform. --- Never pass FOx watching hen house- only a smaller government helps this and term limits.


Defend free speech and expression.-Left are the oppressors
Ensure universal healthcare as a right. -Un constitutional
Create the new new deal.
Ensure universal education as a right. Un constitutional
Ensure universal healthcare as a right.Un constitutional
Make the minimum wage a living wage and tie it to inflation.Un constitutional
Defend and protect women’s rights. - So we dont cre about men?
Ensure paid vacation time, sick time, family leave, childcare. Un constitutional
Protect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Un constitutional
Implement comprehensive immigration reform. agreed
Enact police reform. - Agreed arrest criminals
Combat homelessness. - bring back sanatoriums that liberals removed .

Why do I get the feeling that Mr Sessions won't be asking that question to any of Trump's nominees?
Sweet zombie Jesus, we are so fucked. Closer to 1984 every day.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Can we start Wexit....the secession of the entire west coast? In today's climate, we might be able to get consent of congress or a constitutional amendment allowing it. The right sees us as troublesome bastard stepchildren as it is, many would be glad to be rid of us libtards, and many of us would be glad to leave.

I agree with Oliver here, but I think he sorta missed an opportunity to talk about confirming exactly who our US Constitutional protections should apply to.

It has been all-to-common in the past decade-plus for people / bodies in our government to "justify" questionable actions by saying that they were performed on people who aren't US citizens. Detain and torture suspected (or *known*) terrorists indefinitely without trial? That's fine, they aren't citizens. Send drone strikes against people outside of US borders that we suspect may be aiding terrorists, even though collateral damage is likely? Meh, they aren't Americans. Spy on people, record and intercept their communications to the greatest extent possible without a warrant or probable cause? Never mind -- we're not doing it to our own citizens (even though we now know that even that justification is an outright lie).

It would be nice for the government to take a stand and state that ALL of the protections that are granted by our constitution and have made our country what it is should actually be considered universal and binding in terms of how our government interacts with ALL people, not just US citizens.

Freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, fair trial, no unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. etc. Consistently and universally applied whenever the government has any interaction with any human being on the planet -- inside or outside of US soil, and whether that person is a US Citizen or not.

I suppose it would take a constitutional amendment to codify that. That would require 2/3 support in congress -- so I won't hold my breath. But here is where a president with true leadership could step up and say that whether there is an official amendment codifying that or not, every government office under his (or her) command should behave as though that was law. All the 3-letter agencies, the military, etc. I think that would get the ball rolling and make an amendment possible on down the line.

Our constitutional protections are arguably what made our country great. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by proving that to the rest of the world by actually standing by the courage of our own convictions.

The President does have enough power to totally sink us IF they're volatile enough. Simple incompetence in a president doesn't sink us. However, that can cost lives. 1,833 people died officially from Katrina, although obviously not that many were directly from the utter incompetence of the Bush administration. 4,500 Americans have died in Iraq during the invasion and subsequent occupation. These things don't "sink" the US completely, but they're VERY consequential.

But Trump is incompetent AND volatile. Bringing both of those qualities to the table as president, and you've got much much bigger issues.

Finally, I absolutely do not get the charges of personal corruption against Hillary Clinton, especially when compared to Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton, so far as I can tell, is an agent who is operating within a system that has been corrupted, and not personally by her. The system needs to be reformed. She's done things to win within the system that you'd ideally not do. But I don't get how she is personally corrupt.

But you speak as if Clinton is the competent but corrupt one, and Trump is the incompetent but non-corrupt one, which blows my mind. How is the only way you can be corrupt is through accepting campaign contributions? How is Trump University not an indictment of how corrupt Trump personally is? How is it not corrupt to appeal to white supremacists? How is it not corrupt to name call, incite your supporters to violence, and dismiss women because they must be on their periods? How is it not corrupt to have your daughter make a speech at the RNC and then tweet how to buy the dress she was wearing, so she could make some coin?

Because one of those forms of corruption is being potentially corrupted by a corrupt system, but they're at least trying to reform that system. Hillary Clinton is the one against Citizens United, officially calling for a constitutional amendment to get rid of it. Has Donald Trump?

I don't think HRC will be a great president. I don't particularly like her much. However, she is qualified to be President. She's done nothing illegal, which is the hallmark of whether someone is corrupt.

And don't kid yourself about our government's ability containing a fascist. The Weimar Republic's government had structures in place to prevent the rise of Hitler, too. They had separation of powers. The government was one of the most democratic governments in the world. Fat lot of good that did.

I'm not saying necessarily that Trump is the next Hitler. But I am saying that there are enough similarities that I can't vote for him, and the mere fact he got a major party's nomination is scary beyond all reason. And voting for someone like that proves out their blueprint for future candidates across the board for offices in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches at all levels of government.

As much as I don't like HRC, Trump is easily the worse major party's nominee in a very very very long time.

I agree that 'writing off' a huge, near majority of the population is disastrous....but it's pretty damn close as it stands, with neither party doing much to improve things. It's already not a great time to be Mexican, black, or a woman in America today.

I, also, am at a loss on what to do. Southpark said, and I agreed, that 1/4 of Americans are mentally defective. I'm seeing now that that number is probably closer to 3/4, making meaningful, helpful change impossible. (Trump will be 'meaningful' change, but there's a >99% chance it won't be helpful to anyone not named Trump.)
A constitutional amendment declaring politics off limits for businesses and/or large groups, and making lobbying completely illegal, and funding elections rather than making them 'pay for play' would be a great start...but since the people who benefit from the current system are the same one's charged with making those changes, it's a non starter with no legal solution beyond voting every incumbent out of office...and that's not a good solution either.

Trump is likely not the answer if America is to continue as a united country.

It depends on the level of rot. If every load bearing beam in your home is infested with termites and rotten to the core....burning it down just might be the only way to save your neighbors homes, yours is already gone. We are at best on that knife edge where it's a toss up which is better, repair or replacement...but we aren't doing either, which is making the decision for us as the rot gets worse and less repairable. Perhaps a new structure is needed, one built to eliminate the rot from the get go. Of course....I see that leaves us all homeless in the interim, and many won't survive that, and in that circumstance it will be MUCH worse before it's better....most people advocating the dismantling of the government don't see that. I'm not advocating it, but I am considering it as a possibility.

You have heard of constitutional amendments, haven't you? In fact, one of the quotes I produced from former Mayor, Ed Koch, even discussed that fact.

Please explain which FACTS that I have repeated are incorrect. So far all you have been able to do is curse me, accuse me of being retarded, and literally ignored anything I have said so that you can continue with your vitriol. I don't even know you and you seem to have a major issue with me.

The reason why I put up the list of deaths is because you don't see knee jerk actions in the news over those methods of dying, typically. You do see it over gun deaths because they are sensationalized far beyond the level of anything else, part of which is the reason I think we are having more mass shootings. If you want to go out in a blaze of glory, get your 15 minutes of fame, then shooting people is a guaranteed method.

I do believe we need additional controls on weapons; one that I think would help greatly is ACS (http://www.ammocoding.com/). I am also not an NRA member and don't agree with a lot of the methods they use. I DO believe wholeheartedly in my right to own semi automatic handguns and rifles. If you still have a problem with me over that, I can't help it. But if you continue to be confrontational, then I don't think we have anything further to talk about.

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
- Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center

“If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.”
– Nancy Pelosi, US Congresswoman

“US Senator, If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”
– Diane Feinstein, US Senator

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
- Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Dean of Harvard School of Public Health

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
- Rosie O'Donnell, Actress

“I don’t believe people should to be able to own guns.”
- Barack Obama (during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s)

“We must get rid of all the guns.”
- Sarah Brady, Widow of James Brady

“I believe for example when Washington, D.C., passed a law that nobody could have a gun except law enforcement and it was struck down by the United States Supreme Court, that we should overrule the Supreme Court with a Constitutional amendment. I don’t believe that in our society that we should have guns.”
- Ed Koch, former NYC Mayor

“Confiscation could be an option…mandatory sale to the state could be an option.”
- Andrew Cuomo, NY Governor

“an assault weapons ban is just the beginning...a complete ban on handguns could be possible through state and local action.”
- Jan Schakowsky, llinois Congresswoman

“governments should start confiscating semi-automatic rifles and other firearms
- Dan Muhlbauer, Iowa state Rep.

Now, this was with a quick search on Google. I am sure there are more, but I just thought I would give a sample. Additionally, the really rabid activists have learned to rephrase statements to avoid the term ban. They aren't stupid, they know that they have to soften the phrasing to make it more palatable to the everyday citizen.

The over rule of the will of DC voters sort of shows the need for DC statehood, or at least a step above what DC is now.

Lindsey Graham's statement is just vile. The whole way Congress sneaks provisions into unrelated bills needs to stop. Each piece of legislation needs to stand on its own. Sadly that would likely take a Constitutional Amendment and Congress isn't going to do that as then most of their secret provisions would never pass.

Vote with your wallet.
If you have an account with any Citygroup company, close it.
Same thing goes for B of A.
Small, local banks serve you better and don't lobby congress for bailouts and immunity.
If you give them your money but hate how they use it, take your money back. That simple.
If you like bailouts, wall street immunity, and the status quo of being under the thumb of big banking, keep your money where it is and vote republican.

EDIT:One might also lobby their congressman/woman for a constitutional amendment stating clearly that corporations are barred from government and are NOT citizens, so can't vote, lobby, make political 'statements' (as in commercial campaigns), or donate to political campaigns. I've written many a letter suggesting the same.

Ding! I can't believe how many people come back to this argument strategy nowadays. In the last few years, it has just stunned me that issues like gay marriage bans were put up to POPULAR VOTE. Hurts my brain. It hurts worse when those votes pass, too, but that's why things like civil rights aren't supposed to be put in that position.

But of course let's not forget guns aren't people. Lots of dangerous stuff gets banned, mostly because we don't have a constitutional amendment (and lots of $$$) to defend them.

My main hope for the future is that both sides cope with the fallacies of their OWN arguments and work towards reasonable compromise. The laws should be narrowly focused to combat criminal behavior, while allowing responsible law-abiding citizens reasonable freedoms for hobbies and self-defense! Oh it sounds so simple.