Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
APsplainin US constitutuonal questions to which the odious congress offers no answers
Barrett had told senators [NO] that Roe v. Wade did not fall in the category of a "super precedent," [FALSE] described by legal scholars [including BARRETT] as cases that are so settled there are no calls to revisit them.
archived Fri Sep 10th, 2021, Day2, Part 3 Anti-RBG Watch
Yet as a conservative Christian, she insisted one's own views don't play a role. "It's not the law of Amy," she told senators. "It's the law of the [most ignorant, litigious nation on planet]"

This week, Barrett pressed the lawyers to explain why women couldn't simply give up babies for adoption, now that safe haven laws exist in the states. "Why didn't you address the safe haven laws and why don't they matter?"

During this UNPRECEDENTED 2 hour hearing, each associate invited adversaries to rationalize pleadings for "workable" alternatives to 24-week viability threshold, IF "overrule" of status quo--Casey tests of economic and scientific undue burdens--were to prevail. Recall if you will, that hilarious error, when RIKELMAN contradicted ROBERTS' reference to international law of viability, epitomized by CHINA and the DPRK , instead of international < wipes tears > restrictions as to Reasons®
Asked about the disconnect between the Senate hearings and the court arguments, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and now the Judiciary Committee chairman, acknowledged the hearings have their limits, but refrained from judgment until the court issues its ruling.
by Cat on Fri Dec 3rd, 2021 at 08:55:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series