Equality Before The Law?

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Once again (I’m getting sick of this), Progs say “Laws for thee aren’t for me.”

    Comment by dick, not quite dead white guy — May 9, 2017 @ 9:26 am

  2. Dammit!!!!!!
    I was just gonna post that.
    GMTA
    Anyway, here’s how the post ended:

    My reaction?

    One of my favorite movie gestures, ever.

    Comment by DougM (flawed) — May 9, 2017 @ 9:58 am

  3. Leftist ideology is the Great Destroyer of everything. If and when, in some terrible Dystopian future where said ideology rules all, these leftists will then start to cannibalize each other with the least crazy being the first targets, then so on and so on.

    Comment by bo1921 — May 9, 2017 @ 10:54 am

  4. Hasn’t been equal treatment under law for a long time, if ever, but at least it didn’t look so much like “professional studio wrestling” as it does now. The referees seem to look away at juuuuust the right time for the proper villains.

    Comment by OldFert — May 9, 2017 @ 1:51 pm

  5. If you like lawyerin’,
    here’s an interesting exchange between Cruz and Yates.

    Comment by DougM (flawed) — May 9, 2017 @ 2:49 pm

  6. Disrobe this idiot judge right away. If he is considering who made the EO to make his judgement, then he is grossly biased and more than likely corrupt. You’re Fired.

    Personally, if President Trump declared jizzlam as a terrorist screed and not a religion, closed every mosque in the nation and started immediate deportation of every one of them who doesn’t have a MD or a PHD, along with halting 100% of all muzzie immigration, I’d stand up and cheer. He’s already branded as a “fascist”; might as well act like one and get the job done right.

    Comment by Drew458 — May 9, 2017 @ 4:00 pm

  7. ^Drew458 – ***************applause*****************

    Comment by dick, not quite dead white guy — May 9, 2017 @ 7:01 pm

  8. Jadwat said the “establishment clause prohibits targeting and denigrating a religion”

    Bullshit. It doesn’t say any such thing. (And this clot is a lawyer? – I thought they could read.)

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” (Never mind that this “free exercise” bit was intended to apply only to Christian religious denominations – the Founders didn’t conceive of their new nation inviting pagans in…) But there’s nothing there about denigration, especially denigrating a backward Satanic death cult and political system masquerading as a religion. The “free speech” part of that First Amendment specifically guarantees the right to call people names. (Especially when they deserve it.)

    If there were, those afore-mentioned Christians would have a damn-sight more to complain about than the Mohammedans.

    Comment by Lord of the Fleas — May 9, 2017 @ 9:08 pm

  9. So since Congress can’t make a law targeting a religion that means the POTUS can’t stop immigration from failed states?
    Makes total sense.

    Eh, at least the justification isn’t the pursuit of happiness clause so that’s something.

    Comment by Veeshir — May 9, 2017 @ 9:22 pm

  10. Maybe the gov’t can direct the incoming from those places to be settled in Hawaii, California, Maryland, for starters.

    If they want to make the bed, they should have to sleep there, too.

    Maybe Chappaqua and the DC area as well.

    and I second: Drew458 – ***************applause*****************

    Comment by OldFert — May 9, 2017 @ 10:21 pm

  11. My nomination is Trey Gowdy.

    Comment by DougM (flawed) — May 10, 2017 @ 12:34 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Close this window.

0.190 Powered by WordPress