House votes to create sexual deviant rights, violates constitutional limitations

[WuWei]

@JayJay

@WuWei

@JayJay

So do you believe the CRA of 1964 was unconstitutional as well…since it did the same thing?

It absolutely was.

Yes because can you really be abiding by the Constitution unless you’re holding an entire race of people back economically?

Because freedom of association and all that…

Where in the Constitution do I find the “pushing an entire race of people forward economically” clause?

Glad we could agree.

ETA: That was a pretty sad post for someone smarter than both Shapiro and me, Jay.

[JayJay]

@WuWei

@JayJay

@WuWei

@JayJay

So do you believe the CRA of 1964 was unconstitutional as well…since it did the same thing?

It absolutely was.

Yes because can you really be abiding by the Constitution unless you’re holding an entire race of people back economically?

Because freedom of association and all that…

Where in the Constitution do I find the “pushing an entire race of people forward economically” clause?

Glad we could agree.

Why am I not surprised this is where you took the conversation?

A whole race had been enslaved and then held back for 100 years, despite the Constitution telling them they were equal citizens to everyone else in this country.

Your response to this is “Sorry- the Constitution doesn’t let us do anything about it. The principles of freeberty will be destroyed if we don’t allow whites only lunch counters and separate but equal schools. Sucks to be you, eh?”

[WuWei]

@JayJay

Why am I not surprised this is where you took the conversation?

A whole race had been enslaved and then held back for 100 years, despite the Constitution telling them they were equal citizens to everyone else in this country.

Your response to this is "Sorry- the Constitution doesn’t let us do anything about it. Sucks to be you, eh?

So, where is it? What does this emotional fit have to do with the Constitutionality of the CRA?

[JayJay]

@WuWei

@JayJay

Why am I not surprised this is where you took the conversation?

A whole race had been enslaved and then held back for 100 years, despite the Constitution telling them they were equal citizens to everyone else in this country.

Your response to this is "Sorry- the Constitution doesn’t let us do anything about it. Sucks to be you, eh?

So, where is it? What does this emotional fit have to do with the Constitutionality of the CRA?

It’s not an emotional fit. The 14th Amendment made blacks equal citizens of the United States. The next 100 years were spent by people violating that Amendment far and wide.

The CRA wasn’t about “pushing a race forward”. It was enforcing the 14th Amendment, finally.

[WuWei]

@JayJay

It’s not an emotional fit. The 14th Amendment made blacks equal citizens of the United States. The next 100 years were spent by people violating that Amendment far and wide.

The CRA wasn’t about “pushing a race forward”. It was enforcing the 14th Amendment, finally.

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with the private sector.

[zantax]

@Kevhead

Sorry the constitution was written over 200 years ago when homosexuality was shunned and never talked about. Our world is very much different then our founding fathers. That’s what is meant by a living breathing constitution. It can be interpreted many ways that’s why you stretch it in any way it suits you and vice versa. That’s why there is a supreme court. Where are corporations in our constitution? Why do they have so many rights. Where is it in our constitution anything about marriage or sexuality. People tried the same excuse when it came to giving blacks the right to vote. Why did they have to put a separate amendment for women to have the right to vote?

Oh I am so saving this, can’t wait to see how long you hold this view with the Supreme Court moving further and further to the right.

[Bodecea]

@WuWei

@AngraMainyu

Sucks when the shoe is on the other foot.

Revenge?

That’s not an indication of revenge…it’s an indication of “depends on whose ox is gored”.

[JayJay]

@zantax

@Kevhead

Sorry the constitution was written over 200 years ago when homosexuality was shunned and never talked about. Our world is very much different then our founding fathers. That’s what is meant by a living breathing constitution. It can be interpreted many ways that’s why you stretch it in any way it suits you and vice versa. That’s why there is a supreme court. Where are corporations in our constitution? Why do they have so many rights. Where is it in our constitution anything about marriage or sexuality. People tried the same excuse when it came to giving blacks the right to vote. Why did they have to put a separate amendment for women to have the right to vote?

Oh I am so saving this, can’t wait to see how long you hold this view with the Supreme Court moving further and further to the right.

I think this SCOTUS is going to surprise you on how it rules on social issues.

And that what we’re going to hear, from the most ardent defenders of Justice Kavanaugh when he was being vetted, will be what a terrible activist justice he is.

Like we hear about Roberts already.

[7ranz]

@JayJay

@zantax

@Kevhead

Sorry the constitution was written over 200 years ago when homosexuality was shunned and never talked about. Our world is very much different then our founding fathers. That’s what is meant by a living breathing constitution. It can be interpreted many ways that’s why you stretch it in any way it suits you and vice versa. That’s why there is a supreme court. Where are corporations in our constitution? Why do they have so many rights. Where is it in our constitution anything about marriage or sexuality. People tried the same excuse when it came to giving blacks the right to vote. Why did they have to put a separate amendment for women to have the right to vote?

Oh I am so saving this, can’t wait to see how long you hold this view with the Supreme Court moving further and further to the right.

I think this SCOTUS is going to surprise you on how it rules on social issues.

And that what we’re going to hear, from the most ardent defenders of Justice Kavanaugh when he was being vetted, will be what a terrible activist justice he is.

Like we hear about Roberts already.

The only good thing about Kavanaugh being on the court is that Roberts can’t pretend he is the head of a dignified institution.

[JayJay]

Yes but I’m betting, based on what I’ve seen so far, that Kavanaugh is not going to be the ally of social conservatives people think he’s going to be.

[7ranz]

@JayJay

Yes but I’m betting, based on what I’ve seen so far, that Kavanaugh is not going to be the ally of social conservatives people think he’s going to be.

I don’t think so. We are going to be railroaded.

[JayJay]

@7ranz

@JayJay

Yes but I’m betting, based on what I’ve seen so far, that Kavanaugh is not going to be the ally of social conservatives people think he’s going to be.

I don’t think so. We are going to be railroaded.

Like I said…I could be wrong. We shall see.

[7ranz]

@JayJay

@7ranz

@JayJay

Yes but I’m betting, based on what I’ve seen so far, that Kavanaugh is not going to be the ally of social conservatives people think he’s going to be.

I don’t think so. We are going to be railroaded.

Like I said…I could be wrong. We shall see.

I hope so. But I’m pretty sure we are ■■■■■■■

[7ranz]

Sneaky is right about them being Ephors.

[WuWei]

@Bodecea

@WuWei

@AngraMainyu

Sucks when the shoe is on the other foot.

Revenge?

That’s not an indication of revenge…it’s an indication of “depends on whose ox is gored”.

Can’t see the question mark?

[WuWei]

@JayJay

Yes but I’m betting, based on what I’ve seen so far, that Kavanaugh is not going to be the ally of social conservatives people think he’s going to be.

Kavanaugh is going to vote how Roberts tells him to.

[WuWei]

@7ranz

Sneaky is right about them being Ephors.

Why do you say that?

[7ranz]

@WuWei

@7ranz

Sneaky is right about them being Ephors.

Why do you say that?

Learn to take a compliment. lol.

[WuWei]

@7ranz

@WuWei

@7ranz

Sneaky is right about them being Ephors.

Why do you say that?

Learn to take a compliment. lol.

I can, it just interested me.

[7ranz]

@WuWei

@7ranz

@WuWei

@7ranz

Sneaky is right about them being Ephors.

Why do you say that?

Learn to take a compliment. lol.

I can, it just interested me.

I know, I’m just giving you ■■■■■

They are just unelected judges who determine what is the “law of the land” or what is “constitutional.”

And…the shoe’s clearly on the other foot.