|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Senate Judiciary Meets Thursday; Vote on Barrett Looming?
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Fox News is reporting that the Senate Judiciary Committee will meet again this Thursday, Oct. 22 “to consider” Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court a week after committee Democrats tried everything they could to make the judge commit to how she might decide cases, all to no avail.
Judge Barrett would succeed liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last month following a long battle with pancreatic cancer. Barrett, by all accounts, is the opposite of Ginsburg, in that she is a constitutional originalist, where Ginsburg is considered by many to have been an activist. |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/20/2020)
|
"Ginsburg is considered by many to have been an activist."
"Daffy is considered by many to have been a duck." |
Comment by:
punch
(10/20/2020)
|
> "Daffy is considered by many to have been a duck."
He's not? You just broke my heart. LOL |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|