The America Democrats voted for.. 😢

B00Mer

Keep Calm and Carry On
Sep 6, 2008
44,139
6,871
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.getafteritmedia.com
Being a Democrat Is Not Cool Anymore



And they are not taking it well. Elon just bought their country club and now everyone's going to be back on the course.
 

Dixie Cup

House Member
Sep 16, 2006
4,280
2,267
113
Edmonton
Two Republican senators are on record as wanting to repeal the Civil Rights Acts or have them struck down as violations of the First Amendment's right to freedom of association. This would be such a shocking reversal, and is so dangerous to say, that if two sitting senators are saying it, there's a lot more who're thinking it.

What, you thought the "freedom to refuse service to gays" was the whole shebang? That's so CUTE! Just the first step in a process.
OMG - I hadn't heard that. IF that is true (and often they're not whether it's a Dem or a Rep) then you're absolutely correct in stating this is unconscionable. However, that doesn't negate my previous statement regarding this Senator which is just as bad.

Who are the two Senators?
 
Last edited:

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
49,243
3,182
113
Washington DC
Braun (R-Ind.)

Question: Senator, you spoke about judicial activism. If this Supreme Court later this year strikes down the right to abortion, would you consider that to be judicial activism legislating from the bench?
Answer: I consider it to have been judicial activism when it occurred back almost 50 years ago. So I think this would be bringing it back to a neutral point to where that issue should have never been federalized, way out of sync I think with the contours of America then. And this basically puts it back to a point where, like most of these issues when one side of the aisle wants to homogenize it federally, is not the right way to do it. This should be something where the expression of individual states are able to weigh in on these issues, through their own legislation, through their own court systems. Quit trying to put the federal government in charge of not only things like we did navigating through COVID recently, where I think that was misguided, but in general. So now I think this takes it back to a point where it should have never gotten beyond in the first place.

Question: Would you apply that same basis to something like Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that legalized interracial marriage?
Answer: When it comes to the issues, you can't have it both ways. When you want that diversity to shine within our federal system, there are going to be rules and proceedings, they're going to be out of sync with maybe what other states would do. It's a beauty of the system, and that's where the differences among points of view in our 50 states ought to express themselves. And I'm not saying that rule would apply in general depending on the topic, but it should mostly be in general, because it's hard to have it on issues that you just are interested in when you deny it for others with a different point of view.
Linky-dinky.

Paul (R-Ky.)

A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin. It is unenlightened and ill-informed to promote discrimination against individuals based on the color of their skin. It is likewise unwise to forget the distinction between public (taxpayer-financed) and private entities.“ — Rand Paul

Linky-dinky.
 
Last edited: