Posted on 07/02/2018 4:26:42 PM PDT by detective
So, Susan, it’s better to murder children in the womb, correct? The fallacy about “pro choice” is that only the mother has a choice and that is to kill her child, lawfully. The baby has no choice. It only gets killed, no doubt against it’s choice for life. For Susan to subscribe to this is horrendous.
Do we even need her vote?
What a bitch. Of course Turdkowski believes the same thing.
Give it up Susan.
I know what you want - Recognition. You want to be wined and dined - you want to be the swing vote, you want to be Important.
It’s all bout your ego, it’s all about how great you are.
You know what? You ain’t s—t.
YOU are not acceptable.
Collins doesn’t care one way or the other...she just wants to be important.
“Collins doesn’t care one way or the other...she just wants to be important.”
Collins is happy being known as a “moderate” Republican. She votes about 50% liberal and 50% conservative.
Collins is a Roman Catholic. How does she square her pro abortion views with her religious teachings?
Collins was one of three Senate Republicans who voted against the repeal of Obamacare. While conservatives frequently condemn John McCain for squashing Obamacare repeal, we should remember that if either Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski had voted for repeal, McCain’s vote would not have mattered. Collins was an enabler.
In stark contrast to the rights that the Founding States protected by expressly amending them to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights for example, the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protected the so-called “right” to have an abortion.
In other words, the politically correct right to have an abortion was wrongly legislated from the bench by activist justices.
Consequently, instead of being able to strongly defend an enumerated right like patriots can with the 2nd Amendment for example, career senators who get themselves reelected with the fictitious right to have an abortion must continually fight tooth-and-nail to maintain a pro-abortion activist justice majority on the Supreme Court in order to keep the phony right to have an abortion alive.
So with all due respect to Sen. Collins and Maine FReepers, she’s an excellent example of a post-17th Amendment ratification senator who likely doesn’t understand the Constitution any better than the low-information citizens who elected her probably do.
Also, until the states wise up and constitutionally prohibit political party support for federal elected officials, the Republic Party needs to give itself the power to expel so-called Republicans like Sen. Collins who doesn’t promote the values of the majority of its members.
Patriots need to support Pres. Trump in leading the states to repeal the ill-conceived 17th Amendment.
The 16th Amendment needs to disappear too.
She’s a Republican? Actually, yes, in the Kalifornia sense of the word.
Established law is a law, written by congress and ratified by the president, or absent such affirmation has been overridden by a super majority of congress and then later sustained by the courts during challenge.
Roe v Wade isn’t established law, it is a precedent.
But she knows this; otherwise her supporters might be asking why she’s never introduced a federal LAW for abortion on demand.
She must be very fond of activist from the 60s and 70s, who overturn 200 years of past presidents in imposing a very specific and yet competely unwritten law.
Involving a complicated system of ‘trimesters’ and methoids of service that had up until that time never before been imagined much less practiced.
That is unfortunately one of many such definitions of an entirely lawless federal court. Also known as activist.
If you can’t overturn activist decisions than you cannot have the rule of law.
if you want the right to kill babies to be part of the Constitution as the court did then actually put it there.
Yes, she should be asked is she saying that a Supreme Court should never overturn a prior decision? Then that specific question - what about Dred Scott ... then what about Plessy v Ferguson ... Roe v Wade said (laughably) the justices did not know when life begins ... has science since then been able to show (without a doubt) otherwise? Is a court’s decision that is factually incorrect as to its basic reasoning going to be allowed to stand on its ignorance / lie? If “yes” why?
“Ity’s horrible to tear a child from its mother’s arms even for the child’s safety, but if we can’t guarantee someone will be gung-ho about tearing unborn babies fro mothers’ wombs, we got no place for this person...”
yeah funny how the gopers are all in for dim picks cause its like their right! But now, they’re all concerned about their own president! What a bunch of liars
Raiderboy, based on your posts, if you claimed the sun was going to rise in the morning, I would damned-sure get a second opinion.
Too bad your attempts to lead the running for the FR Village Idiot title is so obvious!
Repeal the 17th Amendment.
The current situation has given us 100 megalomaniac demi-gods.
The Supreme Court JUST OVERTURNED A PRIOR DECISION in this term’s ruling on internet sales taxes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.