what a sandwich those 3 make
and to think these people represent the top of the pyramid of female jurisprudence
/johnny
Why in the world would we think she has sound ideas on anything? From what I have seen, she is a dope.
mIXED UP HEADLINES/text IN THE pRINT rOOOM:
``But more importantly, let us never forget the impact their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come—on our privacy and our security, on whether we can love whomever we choose...including Farewell Intercourse sex with dead wives``
`
I wonder how they feel about being described this way? Frankly it makes them sound unprincipled and pathetic, and I bet they’re fuming about it (even though the shoe likely fits).
I’d tell FLOTUS to STFU. Maybe they’ll even have to vote conservative on a couple of issues just to prove they’re not political pawns. (Commence holding breath.)
The Constitution is built upon acknowledgment of unalienable rights, only some of which are mentioned such as the right to freely assemble and the RKBA. You will notice that the rights not enumerated (not listed) are reserved to the states and to the people. While I am sympathetic to claims that other rights are “nebulous terms”, you could say that about any of the ones explicitly mentioned.
The right to privacy is recognized by inference in the right to be secure in our persons and papers unless a lawful warrant gives government agents permission to violate it. And that certainly starts with the right to the privacy of our own persons, which we alone own and control. That is the basis for the right to contraception, which is a private matter. And I would include in that, the privacy in sexual matters.
Having said that, a fetus cannot be the property of its mother simply because it while dependent upon its mother for sustenance until she delivers it into the world, it has its own unique genetic identity and personality.
Like Heston said when George Clooney expressed glee over his Alzheimers, “Sometimes class skips a generation”. It looks like the classless society we have become is epitomized by the election of Klinton, and has become even more classless with the election of the most classless President and First lady in our history.
Yah....coming from the mouth of a “defrocked” lawyer...
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/12/wtf-michelle-ob.html
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Mrs. Obama is correct on that point. Just because some rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights it doesn't mean that no other rights exist.
As James Madison put it: "It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution. (quoted here from the Congressional Record, for instance)
She just loves that phrase, doesn't she? Is she implying that having 3 women on the court far outshines appointing the very first woman to the court?
BFLOTUS (Bored.....Brazen.....*&%#@#...take yer pick) is as big an anti American idiot as her fake spouse!
Geez Louise..........
The right to love whoever you want?
See how the left twists issues around?
The issue is not whether you have the right to love whoever you choose. The issue is how we will define marriage in our society. You can still love whoever you choose, even if we don’t allow homosexual marriage. These are two separate issues, but the left over-simplifies it, as if to imply that homosexuals will be persecuted if we don’t allow homosexual marriage.
Heck, our culture has never been more “gay friendly” than it is now in the year 2012, but, to the leftists, not having “equal” marriage rights equals persecution. Go figure.
Michelle, GO AWAY.
Why shouldn't Ruthie Ginzberg, that MENTAL MIDGET, be impeached for such an outrageous remark?!