5885
Comments (248)
sorted by:
279
deleted 279 points ago +282 / -3
180
badorangeman 180 points ago +182 / -2

Repeal the NFA, abolish the ATF. Silencers and automatic pew pews for every law abiding citizen!

122
deleted 122 points ago +124 / -2
74
MakeAmericaLegendary 74 points ago +75 / -1

Turrets behind every blade of grass!

51
RiverRunnerVDB 51 points ago +52 / -1

You just described my dream home defense system.

6
Mitschu 6 points ago +6 / -0

Meh, needs more molten lava, and lava sharks with laser beams on their heads.

4
LatitudeofMind 4 points ago +4 / -0

only if I can shoot the lava somehow out of a firearm

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

id be happy with just lava moat and turrets

10
zipodk 10 points ago +10 / -0

CNN: Amy Cony-Barrett: “I have an agenda ... I like guns ... I hate abortion"

3
FreeBased1 3 points ago +3 / -0

I wouldn't be surprised in the least of the media twisted her words like that; it's what they do. Even fox.

I only go to TDW, the treehouse, Bongino...that's about it!

Oh yeah, Legal Insurrection, which really should have much more traffic than it gets!

4
trumpdouble 4 points ago +4 / -0

😂

2
Bluestorm83 2 points ago +2 / -0

Lord Rogal Dorn, is that you?!

27
electioninfection 27 points ago +28 / -1

I've often described myself in debates as interpreting 2A much more radically than groups like NRA. Because seriously, if cannons would've made sense to man 24/7, these original Americans would've absolutely had those set up on their great estates. They believed in everyone having access to the up to date weaponry of the time. If that means grenades and howitzers and rocket launchers, then yes please. (And I don't even own a gun.)

14
deleted 14 points ago +14 / -0 (edited)
2
FreeBased1 2 points ago +2 / -0

But what is a weapon of mass destruction, and more importantly, who defines it?? 🤔🙄

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
7
Pepehands 7 points ago +7 / -0

They owned entire warships back in the day.

14
KekistanPM 14 points ago +15 / -1

Defending your own life is an inalienable right that the government is tasked with securing.

But agenda-driven power-hungry domestic enemies have flipped government's purpose over its own head.

3
Jikemenkins 3 points ago +3 / -0

100% yes. 2nd amendment demands parity of arms for civilians and military. Anything less is infringement.

29
Two_Scoops__ 29 points ago +32 / -3

go further. I want rocket launchers and everything else the military has.

18
Slyhillary 18 points ago +24 / -6

You can't even buy a pistol in another state without an unconstitutional transfer.

14
PKpwnage 14 points ago +16 / -2

I want sharks with laser beams attached to their frickin' heads!

6
Cyer6 6 points ago +6 / -0

Sure would be nice to have R2D2 mounted on my roof. Brrrrrrrrrrt! Problem gone.

23
ca18det 23 points ago +23 / -0

I need a integrally suppressed super shorty 300 blk with a giggle switch and it's none of the government's business.

13
GibsonDawg 13 points ago +13 / -0

You just described my spirit animal.

4
2Fangz 4 points ago +4 / -0

I would legitimately conceal carry a Glock 18. Especially in these riotous times.

4
MiyamotoHolliday 4 points ago +4 / -0

Semi is better for killing lots of people fast. Auto is better for suppressing and wounding lots of people fast. Ride them sights, pull when they line up with hearts and minds.

5
bellamy 5 points ago +5 / -0

I like to throw in two grenades, the first one on a high pop and the second one right in so they can't take proper cover, then I rush in with the combat shotgun before they can recover. Sixteen rounds of buckshot will clear out the entire house front to back.

2
NomadicKrow 2 points ago +2 / -0

These minecraft strats are top tier

0
MiyamotoHolliday 0 points ago +1 / -1

Thats a nice LARP, but I've actually killed people with a glock in Afghanistan. If you'd like to discuss really how to kill with a pistol, Im here. If you wanna write 80s action movie scenes, please continue...

9
de9ebkmd7 9 points ago +9 / -0

Does you vision include buying them at gas stations?

7
tdavis25 7 points ago +7 / -0

I mean...depending on where in the US you are thats a thing. In my future I see something even better: vending machines.

4
MadLibs 4 points ago +4 / -0

"Take this $100 and go grab your Uncle Dave something from the Coke machine."

6
Colonel_Dax 6 points ago +8 / -2

No, liquor stores/cannibus/opioid stores. Explain why the feds should be in the drug business, except to enforce price supports for smugglers.

4
trollkin0331 4 points ago +9 / -5

Big nah on your degeneracy stores.

5
Colonel_Dax 5 points ago +6 / -1

I appreciate artificially stupid enemies. Let them destroy themselves on their own dime. Why can't they off themselves before they become a threat to the rest of humanity? What, you are hoping they cure cancer?

0
trollkin0331 0 points ago +3 / -3

Those people will find a way to destroy themselves no matter what you make legal or illegal. So why not leave it criminalized and use the courts to lock them up?

5
latic 5 points ago +5 / -0

Because then you are spending money on the prison system, rather than making money on the tax, until they decide to destroy themselves (if they do).

3
TrumpTrain425 3 points ago +4 / -1

Because there is no reason cannabis and alcohol should be treated any different.

ESPECIALLY considering alcohol quite literally kills hundreds daily

2
Colonel_Dax 2 points ago +3 / -1

Why lock them up? Seriously? To protect them? From what? The World is tough. It's worse if you are stupid.

They could buy a pound of heroin at Wally World. $5, at real world prices. They shoot up, slow their heartbeat to once a week. Who loses? Cardboard box, at county expense, buried by someone working off a traffic ticket. The problem would be self-correcting.

The idea of government issue social engineering is only 120 years old. It doesn't work. People have never been more miserable.

3
MiyamotoHolliday 3 points ago +3 / -0

Might reduce drug related crime. Like how alcoholics dont break into peoples houses for alcohol money cause they can try and steal a bottle and its a misdemeanor not a felony.

0
trollkin0331 0 points ago +1 / -1

Reducing crime by decriminalizing it is a leftist argument, doesn't work, and typically an effect of lacking the will to enforce the law.

1
MiyamotoHolliday 1 point ago +2 / -1

Decriminalization of alcohol... sooooo leftist...

It's a libertarian position too. You're not my kind of people. That's fine. Dont tell me how to live my life and I wont treat you like Al Qaeda

3
--1-- 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's insane to me that tax stamps are what prevents people from exercising their second amendment rights.

43
MyTeenageBody 43 points ago +43 / -0

I fear we will never have real leader like Trump who work for us. I have no idea what will happen after Trump’s next term but hopefully most people wake up and stop voting for these career politicians that hate us.

24
MouthAgapeForBLMJizz 24 points ago +26 / -2

I think Cruz or DeSantis would both look out for us. Maybe not to the extent of Trump but they seem like legitimately good people. Noem too. Trump Jr? Gatez? Tucker?

10
MuadDon 10 points ago +13 / -3

Cruz can run for higher office when he's done something about the tech companies beyond mean tweets. If he didn't wanna play ball, shouldn't have gone to bat. Not the kinda person we need. Texas needs new Senators ASAP, like most states.

10
unicornpoop 10 points ago +10 / -0

The are all playing games. ALL OF THEM. No more career politicians.

3
cob05 3 points ago +3 / -0

Term limits for everyone in government

2
spicy_deluxe 2 points ago +2 / -0

Check out Missouri Senator Josh Hawley. He's exactly what we need.

1
MouthAgapeForBLMJizz 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well, He will run for higher office whether you like it or not to be honest.

Cruz is one of the only conservatives being outspoken and actually trying to do something about antifa as a terrorist organization. I think during the “meeting” or whatever it was THREE other Republicans showed up?

I was just thinking of feasible options. We can honestly find something wrong with just about anybody but what good does that do? Many probably said the same things about Trump in 2012 ish in regards to him potentially running for President.

2
pokeman 2 points ago +2 / -0

Libs might be able get behind desantis.....might. Desantis gave Florida 20k acres in aquatic preservation. Which is HUGE win for a fishermen like me. Too many New Yorkers coming to my state and keeping illegal size fish. Need more areas for fish to breed in safety.

1
MouthAgapeForBLMJizz 1 point ago +1 / -0

Illegal fish??

2
heysup 2 points ago +2 / -0

Most, if not all, states have size requirements for keeping fish that you catch.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
aaafirefly123 1 point ago +1 / -0

So far he’s been very pro-MAGA.

If he decides to run in 2024 he would be a strong candidate for my vote.

1
2Fangz 1 point ago +2 / -1

Don Jr needs to get elected - preferably to governor - somewhere pronto if he wants to be president eventually.

I know The Donald didn't hold any office prior, but that was a miracle frankly.

1
WestCoastG 1 point ago +1 / -0

CA gov

11
deleted 11 points ago +12 / -1
8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
2
BIDENSACPADDICT 2 points ago +2 / -0

Exactly this. Media and the silicon valley fucks combined with the schools are just about impossible to overcome peacefully. Theyll just brainwash your kids to hate everything you believe in.

1
Raritat 1 point ago +1 / -0

During the 2nd Trump term following should be included:

  1. Breaking teacher unions and creating a voucher system
  2. Complete implementation of enforcement of teaching racism garbage, such as "critical race theory"
  3. Self hating private institutions preaching blm and stuff, lose a way to get federal tax funds and should carry a mandatory penalties under the Anticommunist statutes
  4. Anti-trust action against FB, google, Amazon and similiar
  5. move many of the federal institutions from Washington DC to the mainland of America. WY, Idaho, Montana
1
aaafirefly123 1 point ago +1 / -0

Spread the federal agencies throughout all of America’s state capitals.

I vote for putting the FBI in Alaska.

5
unicornpoop 5 points ago +5 / -0

Conservatives can't win a game where the other side cheats and changes the rules. That time has passed. Marxist democrats don't have any regard for law, tradition, or individual rights.

2
Trump2000 2 points ago +2 / -0

We need the DOJ back.

10
Capitalism_Fuck_Yeah 10 points ago +11 / -1

Politicians are not elected to be leaders they are elected to parrot what their constituents desire. We are getting what we are voting for.

Trump wouldn't have survived as a senator or house rep. He would have been banned from speaking due to him doing what he believes is right.

5
MyTeenageBody 5 points ago +5 / -0

Then I guess most Americans want our country to be destroyed cause even most of the republicans are bad.

2
Capitalism_Fuck_Yeah 2 points ago +2 / -0

We as a society need to redefine who we want serving as politicians.

2
TheEmperorProtects 2 points ago +2 / -0

Most people know nothing about the specific policies their candidate supports. It’s just pure “my side good, other side bad.”

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
1
spicy_deluxe 1 point ago +1 / -0

My favorite pick is Missouri Senator Josh Hawley.

17
supersecretaccount82 17 points ago +17 / -0

I certainly hope that GOA can push a solid NFA or AWB/mag cap/features ban lawsuit up the channels to SCOTUS in the next few years.

10
deleted 10 points ago +10 / -0 (edited)
3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
7
SemperFree 7 points ago +7 / -0

It's not the job of the SC to question established law. Unless of course that law is challenged?

6
deleted 6 points ago +8 / -2
4
SemperFree 4 points ago +7 / -3

No, I did not say We are not, I said it is not the job of the SC.

You sound a bit unhinged and may need to take a break from politics

1
deleted 1 point ago +3 / -2
1
SemperFree 1 point ago +5 / -4

I'm frustrated as the next person regarding the state of many of our laws and the world for that matter.

However, I do believe you should take a break from politics for a few days. You sound a bit unhinged. It's not healthy man and will lead to a dark place.

142
Freedom4545 142 points ago +143 / -1

LOL no wonder the dems dont want her there.

85
Tcrlaf1 85 points ago +86 / -1

“My God! She’ll actually follow the Constitution thingy. HOW EVIL!” - CNN

26
AprilShowers 26 points ago +26 / -0

Fucking CBS had a tweet last night linking to an article in which they called "originalism" a controversial school of thought. Originalism, interpreting the constitution as it is written, is controversial. What the fuck happened.

7
TheEmperorProtects 7 points ago +7 / -0

It’s “controversial” to the MSM because it doesn’t agree with their lefty bullshit.

4
JayLow 4 points ago +4 / -0

Well, it actually used to be. Scalia was the first Justice to adhere to Originalism in a long time. He revolutionized the legal thinking in his own time. The fact we have so many Originalists now is directly the doing of Antonin Scalia.

3
AprilShowers 3 points ago +3 / -0

That's actually a fair point.

2
Krysdavar 2 points ago +2 / -0

Because no matter how they try to spin what is in there to fit 'their daily BS to feed the sheep', they would have to shit on stuff as they always do. Because nothing in these legal documented papers fits their narrative. So they shit on it in a different way.

1
nutup_orshutup 1 point ago +1 / -0

Retard happened.

92
MythArcana 92 points ago +93 / -1

Why are we having hearings when the democrats intend on blocking the vote anyway?

80
Used_2_Vote_Democrat 80 points ago +81 / -1

To mitigate any accusations that she was "rammed through" and to give the Dems a chance to embarrass themselves like they did with Kavanaugh.

23
MythArcana 23 points ago +25 / -2

Okay, I guess that's a semi-valid reason. Huge waste of taxpayer dollars, though.

19
kag-2020- 19 points ago +20 / -1

Unfortunately the Democrats hold many seats in the Senate so they get to have their say. Better spent confirming another Justice than being stacked on pallets and shipped to radical Islamic terrorists in Iran like Obama did.

6
deleted 6 points ago +7 / -1
6
victory2024 6 points ago +8 / -2

We need Romney's vote. That's basically a democrat vote at this point.

2
tufftoffee 2 points ago +2 / -0

Still doesn't justify the hearings

8
jsmith81 8 points ago +9 / -1

A hearing like this is a relatively tiny amount of taxpayer dollar.

5
ArdentGrasshopper 5 points ago +6 / -1

The whole point of collecting tax dollars is to waste them, so that train has left already.

5
deleted 5 points ago +6 / -1
2
kebabdrogo 2 points ago +2 / -0

Govt in general is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars

13
deleted 13 points ago +14 / -1
8
MythArcana 8 points ago +9 / -1

I dunno. Showing up and voting yes are two different issues. Turtle says we have the votes, but does that include RINOs, and does it equate to 51? I guess we shall see.

6
daberoniandcheese 6 points ago +7 / -1

Pretty sure we only need 50 with a Mike Pence tiebreak vote.

2
kag-2020- 2 points ago +3 / -1

He's not a Senator, he's the President of the Senate and votes in the event of a tie. A quorum requires the presence of the majority of Senators.

2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
0
ObongoForPrison2020 0 points ago +1 / -1

Joe Manchin won't have the balls to skip.

1
Silverblade5 1 point ago +1 / -0

Fun fact: If they intend to block the vote via not showing up, and if this happens for over three consecutive days, the Senate will be considered to be in recess, enabling Trump to make a recess appointment.

3
TrainerBill 3 points ago +3 / -0 (edited)

Dems can't block the vote. Pelosi has said as much. Justice Barret will be confirmed the week of the 26th, roughly a week before the election. Her vote on the SCOTUS my very well save this country from a tumulus election of dems insisting on a never ending counting of ballots. She may save us from dems stealing the election like they tried in 2000.

2
Silverblade5 2 points ago +2 / -0

Fun fact: If they intend to block the vote via not showing up, and if this happens for over three consecutive days, the Senate will be considered to be in recess, enabling Trump to make a recess appointment.

87
Throwingway22 87 points ago +88 / -1

That's disqualified her from being a judge in the eyes of Democrats.

45
Shoe 45 points ago +46 / -1

You guys should watch the new Crowder change my mind about ACB. All the college students legitimately think judges make laws. They don't even understand the role of the judiciary... It's frustrating, yet sad.

13
ORANGE-MAN-RAD 13 points ago +15 / -2

People are dumb everywhere. I won't say where or when, but I was once working a campaign for a person running for the state house who at a campaign dinner described how each state's legislature received bills from the US Congress and then would vote for or against federal bills to be implemented as law in each state. We all drank a bunch of the free liquor and GTFO and our participation in that local GOP committee ceased.

3
Shoe 3 points ago +4 / -1

Lol that'd be such a strange system if that were the case. Only thing we have remotely close to that is the ratification of constitutional amendments, but that's obviously still very different.

3
ORANGE-MAN-RAD 3 points ago +3 / -0

It was a weird evening to say the least. Most people in the room were looking at each other horrified, but a good 10% of the room didn't seem fazed. I like to think that they were drunk and not listening, but I don't know. I was just astounded that he got as far as to win the district's nomination, and that nobody had sounded the alarm before maybe mid October that our candidate was a dolt. IIRC he was a restaraunteur, so maybe he thought the federal system worked like franchises or something. So weird.

2
Shoe 2 points ago +2 / -0

Btw did this clown end up winning?

2
ORANGE-MAN-RAD 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ha. Nope. He got crushed.

1
Shoe 1 point ago +1 / -0

Some one needs to show him some School House Rock civics videos!!!

12
g00se2k 12 points ago +12 / -0

Should the Supreme Court be packed?

Yes

So you support court packing?

Yes

So Donald Trump and the Republican Senate should pack the courts now?

No

??????

4
Shoe 4 points ago +4 / -0 (edited)

They have zero standards. Their view on everything is "I believe in neutrality and equality, so long as I agree with them."

They're conditioned to think anyone who disagrees with them is an evil, evil person. It's mind-blowing...

3
aaafirefly123 3 points ago +3 / -0

Their only principle is “Orange Man Bad” and they will Orwell themselves into believing whatever position is necessary to push that principle, no matter how contradictory the positions are.

4
unicornpoop 4 points ago +5 / -1

I just watched that. I'm amazed at how inarticulate these "smart" college kids are. They can't even form a simple argument to support their view.

3
g00se2k 3 points ago +3 / -0

To be fair, I've seen Crowder stumped a time or two in these segments. They obviously pick the ones for their final video cut they think will get the most clicks for their channel. Not saying that's a bad thing - just saying they should be watched with a grain of salt, and the college campus is not necessarily entirely reflected by the 3-5 people shown in each of Crowder's segments.

2
Shoe 2 points ago +2 / -0

Their personalities mirror what they see on Twitter, and so they think the only appropriate way to interact socially is to mirror NPC bullshit. Logic and consistency is something long lost of them.

1
PocketPosse 1 point ago +1 / -0

Luckily they mostly are all noise and no vote. My college had shuttles to the voting location (Obama/Romney), and participation was still low.

42
bewarethejogger 42 points ago +49 / -7

Pretty much what John Roberts did. Trump pissed him off and now he's a cuck liberal shitting on the constitution.

35
Tacsol5 35 points ago +36 / -1

Did Trump piss him off? Or does the "deep state" have dirt on him and control him? Probably has nothing to do with his name being on the epstien flight logs.

25
Two_Scoops__ 25 points ago +27 / -2

Exactly. I'm tired of people giving excuses that someone was "pissed off". People, this isn't middle school. Nobody is "pissed off" and that's the reason they disregard constitutional law. We all have to work with people who we hate but we still do our jobs. These people have done things that they're now terrified will come out which is why they seem "pissed" at Trump. Same for the celebs. They all loved Trump before he ran. Why did they suddenly start hating him? They didn't. They all have skeletons in their closet that they're terrified will come out. THATS why they "hate Trump"

4
shadows_of_the_mind 4 points ago +4 / -0

tbh Trump should just say "fuck it" and drop everything he's got on Hollyweird. Blow this shit wide open. They deserve it. They make him look bad, and honestly if it wasn't for Hollyweird and the MSM Trump would have a 65+% approval rating

4
nds19 4 points ago +5 / -1 (edited)

Look up his illegal adoption of his child. There's your dirt.

Article: http://www.project.nsearch.com/m/blogpost?id=4878805%3ABlogPost%3A872960

31
MissoulaWes1776 31 points ago +32 / -1

The saddest part of these hearings is listening to lawmakers who simply dont understand....that if they write a law thats actually legal...they dont have to worry about the fucking court.

20
deleted 20 points ago +21 / -1
5
Fabius 5 points ago +6 / -1

That's why they hate her.

They want to pass unconstitutional laws. Freedom gets in the way of their plans for this country. They hate the fact that in America you can say and think what you please, that we have the right to bear arms, etc.

21
Whoopies_tds 21 points ago +22 / -1

But muh gender fluid = judicial fluid

18
reddeadpill 18 points ago +19 / -1

Last night I had a dream that RBG was stuffed into a NASCAR race to show how strong and brave she is. She crashed and died of course, but in a replay of the race it was revealed that someone else was driving the car while her already dead corpse was piled on top of him.

It was retarded, but it cracked me up.

4
JohnAdams 4 points ago +5 / -1

What the? 😂

13
Postal 13 points ago +15 / -2

Please get ACB in, please.

11
CorruptAdamShiff 11 points ago +13 / -2

Seems like common sense - oh that's why they had to explain it like a child to the left!

11
Beat_to_Quarters 11 points ago +12 / -1

The left treated RGB like a royal queen on the bench, with that crown bullshit.

9
Krigstein 9 points ago +9 / -0

Most eloquent!

8
TrudopesEyebrow [S] 8 points ago +9 / -1

*coney

2
Helmerj 2 points ago +3 / -1

2012

6
jubyeonin 6 points ago +6 / -0

Judges can't wake up one day and say, "I like lockdowns. Let's use Jacobson v Massachussetts."

6
Shillyourself 6 points ago +8 / -2

Pretty easy to see why they hate her. She's true to the letter of the law.

The accusations of agenda pushing are an obvious deflection because that is exactly what they intend to do!

6
Bedminster 6 points ago +8 / -2

She was 100% talking about the now very dead RBG. I'm sure the left hated hearing her say that. CONSTITUTION vs Activist.

5
Vegans4Trump 5 points ago +6 / -1

This is so embarrassing, our own politicians don't know how the supreme court works or the legal process. And they are making our laws. Scary.

7
MisterGuapo 7 points ago +8 / -1

Or, this was a leading question to show people how she respects the legal process.

5
Vegans4Trump 5 points ago +5 / -0

Yeah, but I think Lindsey asked it on purpose because he knew how stupid his colleagues are

4
deleted 4 points ago +6 / -2
1
jubyeonin 1 point ago +1 / -0

What about a stare decisis on Jacobson?

4
Dontthreadonme2020 4 points ago +5 / -1

The problem is you need money to challenge the law. And lots of it...the NRA and republicans needs to fucking wake up and take California back.

4
llatlantall 4 points ago +5 / -1

I love her accent.

4
deleted 4 points ago +6 / -2 (edited)
4
CheckorHold 4 points ago +5 / -1

That's where she's wrong. Democrat appointees do just that.

4
Roortoker 4 points ago +4 / -0

How notorious 😉

3
LittleBlackKat 3 points ago +4 / -1

We do have an imperious judiciary. Too many judges are tyrannical fucks.

2
jiujiujiu 2 points ago +2 / -0

The 2nd amendment will decide our future. Not politicians. Not judges.

2
tonightm16 2 points ago +2 / -0

Oh, I forgot with all the COVID crap they cant have a bunch of retards running about in the building like last time.

Well except for the retarded Democrat Senators.

2
jsphere256 2 points ago +2 / -0

...I wouldn't mind if she did though

2
The_RedWolf 2 points ago +2 / -0

Nice

2
warlord1 2 points ago +3 / -1

I’m not wise to the judicial system. Can someone ELI5 the significance of what ACB is saying?

6
Fabius 6 points ago +7 / -1 (edited)

She explained it pretty clearly:

Legislature (law makers, ie. Congress, Assembly, etc.) passes law.

Citizen doesn't want to follow law. Thinks law violates freedom.

Citizen sues government.

Lower court (eg. 9th circuit) hears case, makes ruling.

Citizen or Government appeals the case to Supreme Court and the supreme court after a process ("cert", short for Certiorari) agrees to hear the case and make a ruling on whether the law passed by the legislature falls within the scope of the powers of government granted by the Constitution (ie. whether or not a law is "constitutional")

You can see why Leftists hate "conservative" SCOTUS judges because the Constitution is clear on the limitations of government. The founders did not want a powerful government, because a powerful government by nature limits the liberty of the individual. If the Constitution is followed, Leftists cannot make totalitarian laws. They hate that.

2
warlord1 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thx bro. That makes sense! 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

2
Fizbin7 2 points ago +2 / -0

Joe Stalin pulling pipe

"That's where you're wrong"

Smile

2
mathteach314159 2 points ago +5 / -3

If y’all can’t spell her name right just use her initials! Have some respect for Amy Coney Barrett lol I have seen way too much of this today and yesterday.

I see you made an edit in your comment, thanks!!

2
bitterbut_true 2 points ago +2 / -0 (edited)

She's going to recuse. Another fucking Sessions imo, sorry Pedes.

Watching and listening to her when she was pushed by a Dem senator to "commit" to recusing regarding decisions involving a "disputed election". Of course Dems claim Trump is pushing to get her confirmed so she'll vote for him in a Supreme Court decision (i.e the 'appearance'). She claimed she would take "very seriously" any "appearance of bias", ...didn't have to be any facts just the wishy washy "appearance" which Judges pretend to avoid like the plague. And on that basis implied that she would recuse. She also implied that she couldn't give a committment to recuse right there and then because of legal reasons which she had pointed to previously.

My two cents...she's going to be the classic professional bureaucrat and, where possible in controversial or side-taking issues, PASS THE BUCK (i.e recuse). She's going to fuck the country because of this and then feign innocence and decency about the 'integrity of the law'--blah, blah, blah.

Regarding "appearance of bias", no other Trump hating Judge has worried about this.

Also, surely "appearance of bias" goes with the job. EVERY losing side in a case usually complains that the Judge was 'biased'. So what?

Obviously getting ahead of things here; pray that she doesn't recuse...but Pedes better be ready for this MASSIVE disappointment when it comes to the crunch (as it will). AND BE PREPARED.

2
lanre 2 points ago +3 / -1

Unfortunately they can and they do. They shouldn't, but they do.

2
flyingcaveman 2 points ago +2 / -0

What I'm seeing right now, is some senator trying to re try the obama care law. The senator is telling the judge what the law says. " It's supposed to cover as many people as possible. " Write laws that say what they mean. If it isn't clear it's unconstitutionally vague. They do this on purpose so they can have activist judges read into it what they want.

2
MAGAMAN300 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not just RGB that's directed at every single liberal judge out there. haha I love it!!! She's perfect!!

2
NoCoupForYou 2 points ago +2 / -0

It was perfectly legal for Yankee Clippers on the China Trade to carry a dozen Cannons, scores of muskets, hatchets, and sabres

2
spicy_deluxe 2 points ago +2 / -0

But she's wrong here. The left's judges are perfectly happy to walk in with their own agenda and impose their will on the world. Therefore we must consider all leftist judges decisions to lack precedent over any future cases.

2
Cutter 2 points ago +2 / -0

And just like that, she reveals her bias against agendas.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
Michael032817 2 points ago +3 / -1

Sounds like Lindsey Graham snuck in a magazine restriction question. I like that very much. Very smooth and indirect .

2
SEV3Npoint 2 points ago +2 / -0

Damn, it cut off just as it was getting good!

2
BorisWave 2 points ago +2 / -0

Judges are there to uphold law according to the constitution. Not to have a personal agenda or opinion. She explained this very well. Good job!

2
boomerbutnotOKBoomer 2 points ago +2 / -0

Here you go pedes. Y'all need this in you (what did Piglosi call it?) your QUIVER... kek

The Ginsburg Rule -- send this to Libtard friends and watch their brains explode. Use their own stuff against them. It's a beautiful thing - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoI8LmrBQxM&feature=emb_logo

1
Quietam_Unum 1 point ago +1 / -0

However (there's always one of those) the stunt NY pulled needs a good hard beat down. This crap of passing an unconstitutional law, letting it get to appeal to SCOTUS, and then re-writing it to walk just up to the infringement line before the court takes it has got to stop.

Some justices agree with that but not enough of them.

1
LtPatterson 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hey hey, ho ho, the NFA has got to go!

1
SemperFree 1 point ago +2 / -1

Great comment.

1
hilboggins 1 point ago +1 / -0

Followed by Klobachuar saying, "I'd actually like to be a Queen in here".

GO BACK TO BRITIAN YA WANKA!

1
Flipbarryfromreddit 1 point ago +2 / -1

Thank you!!!!!! Preach!

1
JollyPop 1 point ago +1 / -0

BOOM!!! Suck it bitches