I would rather have a president select a lawyer who will uphold the Constitution instead of a lawyer who is a liberal, godless, anti-America, anti-Christian, anti-Constitution, socialist, homo approving, transgender apologist, Muslim sympathizer, Climate delusionists, illegal immigrant sympathizer, feminist, police hater, baby murdering scumbag!
32 comments
So would a lawyer who is a fascist, god-bothering, saber-rattling jingoist, Bible-thumping, founding father worshipping, homophobic, cultist, racist, intolerrant, delusional climate denier, isolationist, misogynist, police state fapping, corporate and big bank suck-up, warmongering teen and tween murdering shithead make you happy?
Okay, I know this is afchief blowing a gasket and spouting off as usual, but what in the 9 circles of Hell is a "transgender apologist"?
That is just really bad phrasing. How does one conduct themselves as a transgender apologist? Do we say things like,"Boys will be girls" instead of, "Boys will be boys?"
And Climate Delusionist sounds more like a Wizard kit than anything else:
To be a Climate Delusionist, the Wizard must have an Intelligence of 14 and a Constitution of 12. Humans, Elves, and Half-Elves may be Climate Delusionists.
In order to uphold the Constitution, afchief, first you have to read it all and understand how it works. You also need to go to law school and learn what an 'opinion' and 'repugnant to the Constitution' mean, maybe become a judge and write a few opinions yourself.
If he upheld the Constitution, you theocrats would whine about Christianity not being endorsed, everyone being treated equally, etc. And are you even aware how some of those are contradictory?
I thought Afchief was agianst the supreme court and wanted the people to choose. Yet if the p[eople had their way we would imediatly get a new supreme court Justice. 54% of people in a recent poll (That I tried to find and link but couldn't help please) stated so.
It shows that Afchief talks the talk but he's more then willing to have one branch of government strong arm another branch.
@Kuno
Yes it is...as long as I agree with it. If not, then HOW DARE THEY, THESE ACTIVISTS JUDGES SHOULD BE HUNG FOR TREASON.
(For the record, I'm not serious about this comment).
@creativerealms
I actually called him out on that the other day...he posted some copy-and-pasted thing that was a big list of "You might be a constitutionalist if", and one of them was "if you understand there are three coequal branches of government" I said something like "but I thought all that one branch did was offer opinions"
Of course, he had no good answer to that.
>I would rather have a president select a lawyer who will agree with me on everything, and who hates all the people I hate, but the Supreme Court has no political or legal authority anyway, so I'm not sure why it matters who is chosen.
Fixed that for you.
This sounds like a good idea for a song.
A liberal, godless, anti-Christian, baby-killing feminist...
But why does it matter? The supreme court has no authority to do anything except offer a completely nonbinding opinion which no one is obligated to pay heed to, after all. Isn't that what you said over and over again?
So why should you care if Obama nominates a God-fearing, pro-life Christian conservative, a Birkenstock-and-patchouli-wearing liberal hippie or Ronald-fucking-McDonald for Scalia's replacement?
Not like they really DO anything, right?
sorry af chief but you are anti america, anti (real)christian, anti constitution, possibly "red state" socialist, definitely delusional about the climate, and most definitely a scumbag so you have already failed your own criteria multiple times.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.