|
|
|
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:
Jo Jorgensen Is 'Fine' With Filling SCOTUS Vacancy Before Election
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Libertarian presidential nominee Jo Jorgensen says there's nothing wrong with Republicans confirming a replacement for late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before the election.
In fact, if she was president, she would do the same thing.
"I'm fine with having a vote now," Jorgensen told Reason on Tuesday night in Virginia. "I'm running for president because I can best lead the country, and if it were me, I would certainly put my nominee forth." |
| Comment by:
mickey
(10/3/2020)
|
And if it were Joseph Biden or Kamala Harris, they'd put forth their candidate, just like Barack Obama did.
But if the President is GOP, then his power to do his job magically disappears, and he's a tyrant if he does the same thing a Democrat or Libertarian faces no controversy for doing. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
