Friendly forums for passionate Dems!
More than 91 million posts since 2001
Home Latest Greatest Videos Forums Hide ads Join up!
Home Latest Greatest
Videos Forums Help
Hide ads Join up!
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Uh-oh, SCOTUS original co...»Reply #14
Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

In reply to the discussion: Uh-oh, SCOTUS original constructionists of the Constitution... [View all]

brush

(53,759 posts)
14. IMO it's hypocrisy and cherry picking of amendments.
Reply to unblock (Reply #11)
Mon Jul 4, 2022, 05:07 PM
Jul 2022

More justices needed on SCOTUS to counteract the Taliban 6.

TopBack to the top of the page AlertAlert this post for a rule violation ShareGet links to this post PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
  EditCannot edit other people's posts RecommendRecommend this post ReplyReply to this post

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.
29 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Uh-oh, SCOTUS original constructionists of the Constitution... [View all] brush Jul 2022 OP
'the rights not specified in the Constitution belong to the people, not the federal government.' elleng Jul 2022 #1
K&R onecaliberal Jul 2022 #2
I take it you didn't read the full opinion n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2022 #3
Meaning what? Be specific. brush Jul 2022 #5
Meaning SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2022 #12
He also mentioned a witch burning advocate of the 1600s... brush Jul 2022 #17
No, I don't concur with the decision SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2022 #19
IMO it's an unsound decision and won't stand for long. brush Jul 2022 #23
The answer to the problem is in your own post SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2022 #25
We agree. brush Jul 2022 #26
I agree I think In It to Win It Jul 2022 #27
Not to be a downer but In It to Win It Jul 2022 #4
That's my point. They're cherry picking amendments they... brush Jul 2022 #8
Their constitutional analysis is actually biblical fundamentalist analysis unblock Jul 2022 #13
Yes. In more earthier terms, they're FOS. brush Jul 2022 #15
Trenchant analysis, indeed! unblock Jul 2022 #21
I'm sure they interpreted that as... dchill Jul 2022 #6
Bingo. brush Jul 2022 #9
There is no mention of the words Deuxcents Jul 2022 #7
Correct. Those rights not mention belong to the people. brush Jul 2022 #10
The problem with the 9th amendment: unblock Jul 2022 #11
IMO it's hypocrisy and cherry picking of amendments. brush Jul 2022 #14
It's worse than that. It's "we have 6 votes so we can do whatever we want" unblock Jul 2022 #18
Yeah, they're actually running the country now... brush Jul 2022 #20
And you know what, OP? Mr.Bill Jul 2022 #16
Your last sentence is exactly right. They're not the best and brightest. brush Jul 2022 #22
these "strict constructionists" consider that the people exercise these rights by rampartc Jul 2022 #24
We fought a revolution against a king's arbitrary rule and now we Hassler Jul 2022 #28
Yes. Life-time appointments mean we live with what we get... brush Jul 2022 #29
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Uh-oh, SCOTUS original co...»Reply #14
Home | Latest Discussions | Greatest Discussions | Latest Videos | All Forums

About | Copyright | Privacy | Terms of service | Contact

In Memoriam

© 2001 - 2024 Democratic Underground, LLC. Thank you for visiting.