Because of this, the majority cannot abrogate basic rights of the individual for the general benefit. The individual has freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of idea, and freedom of action that does not injure another.
It is not this way in European democracies, such as France. They believe that the individual surrenders his inherent rights for superior civil rights and security. Ergo, the individual can be ruled by the majority and the general benefit.
If this woman does not “get” what we are all about, she has absolutely no business being on the Supreme Court.
Yes you get it as I think most do at FR. I think Republicans should filibuster in order to go through all her public statements in court documents and in academia, because if we know about this as well as other repulsive statements regarding the governments right to burn books after only a superficial search, there must be even more radical statements she has made that could make her a huge political liability for Deems during the upcoming election cycle. I think that is our only hope. She is exactly the person that Obama wants to rubberstamp is radical ideas and go to war with the Robert’s court that he obviously abhors.