Of course, Democrats never believe anything they want is unconstitutional, so this approach frees them to do absolutely anything the Court hasn't explicitly rejected in an identical case, entirely without regard to the Constitution's text or its historical understanding.https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/status/1422674884094791680 …
-
-
Lmao. It’s too easy to expose this guys hackery and projection
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
LOL. How much does it hurt to fold yourself into this much of a pretzel?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Cool, they're challenging the SCOTUS case that expanded gun rights far beyond what the framers ever intended? That's great, that will certainly save lives. Reigning in guns is the most pro life thing you can do
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You’re big on the “Constitution’s text and historical understanding.” Which is why you oppose the Shelby County holding. Right?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Don’t you see, your Honors? It’s totally different!!!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That is not true. In the decades since Roe, and especially Casey, states passed dozens, if not hundreds, of laws they knew would get stuck down by lower courts and never even be considered by SCOTUS. Those laws were not part of a litigation strategy aimed at overturning Roe.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.