1 - 10 Next
He would not win under his new rules either. Affirmative Action AG!
He would not win under his new rules either. Affirmative Action AG!
This is still a red herring. The STANDARDS for proof in the Zimmerman case were not why he could not proceed. The lack of evidence to support the charge was. How does one defend their life with a RACIAL MOTIVE? The question is, in and of itself, patently absurd. Holder is only a Lawyer because affirmative action lowered the standards and this shows he in not qualified.
So gays can't discriminate? How is it IMPOSSIBLE?
In response to:

The End of "Tough On Crime"?

Bill136 Wrote: Feb 21, 2015 2:08 AM
Even if the law is what is unjust? Tyrants have used that mantra and done nasty things in the name of the rule of law.
In response to:

The End of "Tough On Crime"?

Bill136 Wrote: Feb 21, 2015 2:07 AM
And what? Repeal the 8th amendment?
Its not clear as to whether a states rights argument is valid. There is ZERO precedent on this issue in terms of 10th amendment challenges. The only case I know of that even comes remotely close is the 1873 landmark polygamist case in Utah. US v. Reynolds is all that even comes close to validating a states rights argument. I am not sure how you got the impression states rights were in play here. That has yet to be decided.
Absolutely! That is nothing more than returning to how the Framers set it up. I am a libertarian (Small l) and the right uses government just like the left does when it suits their needs. Government has no more business in marriage than it should other stuff the right chastises them for. I vote Republican because I am conservative but many Republicans don't like freedom any more than many liberals do.
Not exactly! The lack of division in the lower courts ensures there are no grounds to contest. SCOTUS can refuse any case if that happens.
He is not even hiding his allegiance to Islam anymore. I think anybody who believes he is Christian is a lunatic nut job.
1 - 10 Next