0
16

[–] BentAxel 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

Oh my fuck! Some of these people are skirting insanity

1
9

[–] Obergruppenmemester 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

Only skirting?

0
7

[–] BentAxel 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

I try to be generous when things might be out of context. And Really? She cant be That fucking stupid? That makes the U.S. Senate look horrible for not bouncing her ass out.

0
3

[–] Pepper-theDoctor 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

some are skirting, the rest have crossed into insanity.

0
0

[–] lord_nougat 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Well they themselves are completely batshit insane, but they're putting pretty skirts on their insanity.

1
5

[–] aristotle07 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Franken's constitution is Sharia. A law that would have him stoned or thrown off a tall building. Stupid liberal cucks.

0
13

[–] behindthetoilet 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

No he doesn't. Until they give people their privacy back they're all blowing hot air.

1
11

[–] rail606 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago 

Pizzagater witch for sure: Not to be outdone, California Senator Dianne Feinstein went full crazy with her statements. First, she suggested that the Constitution, presumably Grouch’s and not Franken’s, was irrelevant because it was written at a time when “women had been burned at stake for witchcraft.”

0
10

[–] TheDude2 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Did that dumb bitch really say that?

0
6

[–] littul_kitton 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

This is the woman who banned firearms while holding a concealed carry permit for her safety. Because safety is for the Lords and Ladies. There is nothing Swinestein won't say while whoring for her political career.

0
4

[–] LewsTherinTelamon 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Yes. Yes she did.

0
6

[–] Martel-Sobieski 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

By that logic then nothing written nowaday is relevant because women are still being executed for adultery or being raped in the middle east.

Women hadnt been burned at the stake under law in the colonies for a loong time by the time the constitution was ratified. The worst was a years imprisonment under the English law the witchcraft act of 1735, but it was considered impossible to prove by many so remained just an unenforceable law.

The distance between the salem witch trials and the ratification of the constitution is the same distance between now and WWI, yet a lot has changed since the first world war and no one would be stupid enough to use it to write off legislation written today

0
0

[–] RoryBellowsLives 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Shit man, maybe we can nullify the New Deal because it was written at a time when blacks and whites used separate water fountains. Same logic, right?

0
4

[–] puggy 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Feinstein must be slipping into senility...she didn't even bring up the left's favorite screech: "IT WAS WRITTEN BY SLAVE OWNERS!"

0
4

[–] Empire_of_the_mind 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Feinstein is one of the dirtiest senators. Shes certainly worried about what's coming down the pike

0
4

[–] stradian 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Actually witchcraft prosecution was on terminal decline before the ratification.

0
6

[–] Pepper-theDoctor 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

guess burning them worked afterall

0
5

[–] newoldwave 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

So just what constitution does Senator Smalley support and defend? The USA has only one.

0
2

[–] Schmorganumb [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Ha!

I deserve good things. I am entitled to my share of happiness. I refuse to beat myself up. I am attractive person. I am fun to be with.

0
0

[–] Reddit_Is_Censored 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Probably the one that's been amended.

1
5

[–] Shekelstein6M 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Two jew senators have a problem with a judge upholding the constitution. I'm absolutely shocked.

0
5

[–] ObscureReference 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

It is possible some Democrats are learning to play the same game Republicans have since March 2016. Maybe the Democrats can take the sage advise Chuck Grassley provided and learn from it. *Grassley Statement on the President's Nomination of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court Mar 16, 2016 Senator Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement after President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland, the Chief Judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court of the United States. “When they structured our nation, the founders placed trust in three separate but equal branches of government. Co-equal authorities are throughout the Constitution, including Article II, Section 2, where the power to nominate an individual to the Supreme Court is granted to the President and authority is given to the Senate to provide advice and consent. Nowhere in the Constitution does it describe how the Senate should either provide its consent or withhold its consent. “Today the President has exercised his constitutional authority. A majority of the Senate has decided to fulfill its constitutional role of advice and consent by withholding support for the nomination during a presidential election year, with millions of votes having been cast in highly charged contests. As Vice President Biden previously said, it’s a political cauldron to avoid. Judge Bork learned even after being unanimously confirmed for a circuit court judgeship, the confirmation process for the Supreme Court is unlike any other. “It’s also important to remember the type of nominee President Obama said he’s seeking. He says his nominee will arrive at ‘just decisions and fair outcomes’ based on the application of ‘life experience’ to the ‘rapidly changing times.’ The so-called empathy standard is not an appropriate basis for selecting a Supreme Court nominee. “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice. Do we want a court that interprets the law, or do we want a court that acts as an unelected super legislature? This year is a tremendous opportunity for our country to have a sincere and honest debate about the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system of government.” *

0
5

[–] lissencarak 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Oy vey, but the constitution was written by nazis!

0
1

[–] Reddit_Is_Censored 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

No, but it was written at a time when not all men were equal and I'm not just talking about slaves.

0
3

[–] lissencarak 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Men are not equal now. Laws do not make you equal anymore than laws mandate what is moral or not.

1
3

[–] BlueDrache 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Oh ... well ... duh? Because god forbid that the Constitution is actually supposed to put a check on Government power?

load more comments ▼ (6 remaining)