1999
Comments (45)
sorted by:
53
GrumpyAmerican 53 points ago +53 / -0

POS Roberts is more concerned with stability and decorum. That’s not his job. His job is THE LAW. He has broken his oath.

23
Count_Dyscalculia 23 points ago +23 / -0

The Nation is up in Arms. Riots, Looting, Murder & Mayhem abound. Cities on Fire. Cities under Occupation.

And this Shit Head is worried about "Stability & Decorum".

7
patataoh 7 points ago +7 / -0

Wtf is stable about striping us of our lawful rights until we start 76ing people

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
36
Turnerscreek 36 points ago +36 / -0

Roberts is a disgrace. Impeach his ass!

18
OrangeElvis 18 points ago +18 / -0

We need to find out what goods the left has on him and bring it out into the light. Then it loses its power over him and we can decide whether or not it is impeachable. Considering it has altered his rulings already, I would say that is a lead pipe cinch.

6
Turnerscreek 6 points ago +6 / -0

Something not right about him.

6
patataoh 6 points ago +6 / -0

Roberts + Penis + Kids.

7
I_Love_45-70_Gov 7 points ago +7 / -0

There is absolutely no proof of this

.

.

...yet.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
Redpillhope 1 point ago +1 / -0

I wonder how this could happen.

24
DaddySmooth 24 points ago +25 / -1

“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging...the right of the people to peacefully assemble” - 1st amendment.

That is crystal clear. Literally could not be any clearer. How can anyone possibly believe a law limiting or forbidding church services complies with the 1st amendment? There is not even an argument to be made. It CLEARLY is unconstitutional and yet 4 Supreme Court justices ruled it is constitutional. If you think that is constitutional then you think nothing is unconstitutional.

14
Friar_Pede [S] 14 points ago +14 / -0

1776 intensifies

6
BadManOrange 6 points ago +6 / -0

They want you to go worship consumerism at Walmart, but if you want to worship God? Can't do that. These leftist judges are nothing more than activists.

3
OrangeElvis 3 points ago +3 / -0

To be fair, Cuomo is not Congress. His "directive" or whatever it is being called should therefore be ignored or at least have no teeth. This "fine you into oblivion" should be ruled illegal and give the victim the ability to sue errrrrbody involved in enforcing it, imo.

3
SilverStarv5 3 points ago +3 / -0

“Shall not be infringed“ is crystal clear too and they screwed that one up all the time. (2A)

2
apchrkey 2 points ago +2 / -0

they would repeal the 1st amendment given the chance

7
grumpoh 7 points ago +7 / -0

So since it's a USSC ruling it affects all states in the nation, right? So Cali can quit having strip-club churches?

6
Mr_Beanths 6 points ago +6 / -0

THANKS RBG, you old, dead cunt!

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
3
RIPIsaacKappy 3 points ago +3 / -0

Funny how they single out Barrett. As it was 5-4, any of the conservative justices could be considered to be playing a key role.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
Bunkerbaby 3 points ago +3 / -0

GET FUCKED ROBERTS. Your anti church bill went straight to Amy.

2
somedaysoon 2 points ago +2 / -0

If the virus was really so deadly the restrictions would be based on group size, not on type of activity. Apartment Coumo thinks some activities are Covid resistant.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
Spark-001 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't see what the problem is, just have the priests take off their clothes during the service.

2
AOCs_tits 2 points ago +2 / -0

It must have hurt Fox to type that headline.

2
InTheArmsOfThePepe 2 points ago +2 / -0

Okay, this should be an easy one today.

Nazi Germany style police state in America.

Yay or Nay?

...

And it's unanimous, the no's ha-- Wait what? Are you fucking kidding me? 5-4? We're talking about direct infringement of civil liberties and four of you fucktards just wanna go right along with it?

(cut to commercial)

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
Friar_Pede [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

I can admit I was wrong on that front.

2
Mintap 2 points ago +2 / -0

Roberts is desperately trying to be included in the Devil's Triangle (Sotomayor-Kagen-Breyer)

2
XcaliburCaliber 2 points ago +2 / -0

I get it, but I absolutely despise calling the most illiberal group of folks in the country ‘liberals’.

To pile on directly from this snip, the ‘liberals’ voted for locking people and business down preventing freedom of movement and commerce. And those are the ‘liberals’?

You keep using that word...

2
cornpop30303 2 points ago +2 / -0

Roberts is being blackmailed, no doubt, but he compromised himself willingly.

2
patataoh 2 points ago +2 / -0

“It’s dangerous to go alone! Take this!” - God gifting us ACB

1
Michael032817 1 point ago +1 / -0

In effect that ruling should have made all city and state restrictions illegal... I wonder how people are going to interpret that. “Assembly”. Key word. Regardless of religion but the peoples right to assemble? Are you kidding? Four justices? Go F yourselves and retire. We want to celebrate Thanksgiving. We can’t assemble more than 10. I see according to scotus invite everyone you want. Call it an assembly.

1
starboard 1 point ago +1 / -0

Jesus that headline is horrid making it seem like Barrett did something wrong. Of course Barrett is going to play a key role she’s one of only 9 Supreme Court Justices. But it’s a done deal so keep crying for the next 40+ years MSM and hopefully longer if Trump gets to nominate a couple more in his 2nd term.

1
45isthebomb 1 point ago +1 / -0

HAs anyone read what that asshat Robert's excuse was

1
SAW2TH 1 point ago +1 / -0

Elections have consequences.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
GarudaOne 1 point ago +1 / -0

Makes you wonder how the hell Alito got through.

1
12gauge 1 point ago +1 / -0

Imagine if that mummy fuck Ginsberg was still around.

1
2ScoopsofCovfefe 1 point ago +1 / -0

Fuck john roberts