Lawrence: Alito’s Draft Opinion Quotes A Man Who Believed In Witches 

Witches are real!

@@thomasreaves588 Not the kind that Bible-believing primitive was looking for; Those were figments of myth-induced ignorance and paranoia.

@@thomasreaves588 Only in your wet religious dreams.

@@nebtheweb8885 😂😂😂👍

Right on. Amen.

Starting with massive lies about the founders and then lying by claiming the US is a combined country not a Federation not a good start. We actually have to get rid of the States and change to a unified country if we want to change that and let the States that don't want to do that go. But liberals must make up out minds do we oppose local autonomy or not.

Yes. We are much better off aborting our poor and importing cheaper, lighter colored poor....

a masterpiece and rare The Ethical American..

Indeed. Sadly the people who should listen to O'Donnell do not and will not.

Yes! I hardly ever look at this channel, but this makes me want more of O'Donnell.

@@votive3946 thanks

@@votive3946 Tucker Carlson is a fascist, anybody who believes in him believes in fascism.

i'd add that if they want to talk about the constitution tehn "Well regulated militia " was defined. and Biden could ask all to sign up and register or they could be locked up for treason.

@You're Gonna Hate This you're gonna love this, we can't talk about both? Argument seems a little like saying, why you walking down the street AND chewing gum? I don't know, because I can.

@You're Gonna Hate This Because Alito wrote the draft opinion they're talking about, maybe?

It was the Justices that made the Roe v Wade ruling in the first place that said abortion was deeply rooted in the nations history, which they then reasoned since they believed this to be the case, abortion should be legal (along with other reasons) The current Justices are merely attacking what the Roe v Wade ruling said itself. They are not saying things not deeply rooted in the nations history aren't rights. Roe v Wade made that claim. The current Justices are saying that is not true, therefore Roe V Wade was ruled wrongly because Roe V Wade said abortion was deeply rooted in the nations history to justify the Roe ruling itself. Make no mistake, the democrats know this, they just don't care. They know most people aren't going to read the draft, so they can pick parts of it to frame the draft in the most negative light possible.

@@tripkings547 No, that's wrong. Roe doesn't say that "abortion rights" are deeply rooted in the nation's history. It says that the principles of privacy, personal autonomy, self-definition, the right to choose how and when to procreate, and so forth--which undergird the right to have an abortion--are deeply rooted in the nation's history. Make no mistake, the Alito ruling is an atavistic, self-serving, legal literalism which threatens every right and every protection which is not explicitly stated word for word in the Constitution.

Women can thank the original suffragettes for the 19th Amendment being passed in 1920. I know that I am and I give thanks to my Great Grandmother for being one of those people who were the original suffragettes. I can only hope that people vote in November like their lives depended upon it because it does. We can’t let the current GOP take over both houses of Congress and take away the rest of our rights

They're getting ready to gut voting rights too! You won't have it for long, it wouldn't surprise me if they overturn the last presidential election and say Trump won.

Wont us to be in their cult NO!

donald trump put them Judges in office so Roe versus Wade could be overturned they are bad watches,they wont us to think its Biden we no better then that.

And this is the crystalized truth....even though he ( or his religious beliefs ) rejected it....he knew that he had no right to impose his beliefs on others ( unlike the right wing Christian sects of today)....because from a Biblical standpoint, we are not responsible for the salvation of other humans.

Exactly how I feel.

_“The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion...and as this is the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing.”_ *― Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1794)*

@@xjarheadjohnson Yeah, Paine was a deist, as were most of the founding fathers. This was a common point of view in the late 18th century -- the French revolutionaries, of course, were understandably anti-Church -- they saw it as a cynical instrument of amoral power. Which it has often been. But not always and everywhere. This is was a common feeling during the enlightenment, and though it has often been true of institutional Church power, it's profoundly ignorant of the broader history of religion. I mean, I like Bill Maher, but he's a complete ignoramus about some subjects and doesn't even realize it.

@@rickrose5377 That's right. If those men were alive today, long after Darwin & the light-years of knowledge we have gained about the Universe, (pun intended) I would bet in Vegas they would all be atheist's. Bill Maher? Who give a $h!t? What does he have to do with our "modern" 21st Century courts still clinging to ancient religious myth & folklore?

@You're Gonna Hate This America IS over 400 years old, 2022 - 1607 = 415 years. The year 1607 is when the thirteen colonies were founded. Looks like you're not a math major.

@You're Gonna Hate This The reference is: Sir Edward Cooke wrote a definition of witches into English law in 1604; the math says 418 years. Nothing to do with America. / Not a math major either.

@@notchbrook556 You mean like English law, particularly 'common law', has nothing to do with current American legal system of laws (read some history please before speaking)

@@bchollis1451 You have misunderstood the context of these comments but it is forgivable.

True. 400 year old reference?? Unimaginable. I can't believe that a GOPper found a reference less than 1000 years old.

The only person who told the truth in this is Trump, in one of his incompetent impulsive blurts he announced the justice to replace RBG would be picked by him to ensure Roe is overturned.

They are republicans. Nothing else can be expected of them.

You wouldnt know a liar if Brandon was sitting on your porch telling you he was the grand poo bah of the water buffalo lodge

Yes, true, but remember, Evangelicals Love Liars. That's one of the main reasons they cherish Trump, well, and for his Adultery with Hookers.

@@vinrico6704 your ignorance is showing Vinny.

well said Michele Z

Absolutely Julia... They lied UNDER OATH. ..these are the highest judges in the land. Scum.

To what end? To give them a fine they'll happily pay? There is only one mechanism for punishing justices: impeachment. And the votes aren't there because of our undemocratic senate.

The problem here is that perjury doesn't apply to opinion, they can just say they changed their mind, at least when it comes to them saying they'd uphold Roe.

Whoa man, what a silly thing you said there kiddo. Please, please please leave the thinking to the adults. Go do something useful and for the sake of our nation, I’m asking that all simple-minded people, like yourself, not ever vote, have children or be in charge of anything or anybody. Thank you.

Darkness lies disguised as light

absolutely Abe Lincoln Top Quality

Fact.

@@jorgegonzalez-larramendi5491 even Lincoln said "had it been up to him, he'd send all blacks back to Africa." And all the time knowing all so- called blacks were not from Africa but right here in "Turtle Island".

The deck is stacked in the SC. It has lost what balance it might have otherwise had when Trump appointed three justices, even though he knows LITTLE about the Constitution or law. Not to mention, it is hard to swallow that a President with Trump's lack of academic credentials, his history of litigation, bankruptcies and corruption in business, and his track record of being inappropriate with women, chooses life time appointments to the bench. It is an abomination of good judgement!

I have lost 100% of my confidence in this country!

LBanana republic rulings🍌 The Supreme Court should be renamed the MSC..the Macho Sh-- Court. Please 🙏 vote blue..or we lose our freedoms.

Me too 💯

I lost mine at Bush v. Gore.

😂

More hypocrite RethugliKKKans than there are Democrats. Vote 'em out!

It might not matter...as the GOP in red and battle ground states....is taking measures of undoing any election result that does not produce a Republican winner.....democracy as we know in this country, is coming to an end....sadly.

For the remainder of my days.

🤣

Convinced me that putting a hit on my siblings allowed me to grow up a spoiled, only child with daddy issues and no self control.

@@glengillham4629 Or if he knew ANYTHING about the Constitution...

@@glengillham4629 That is a very glib, meaningless response. Please provide actual, valid and incontrovertible detail. Failing that, I can only conclude that the liar is you.

@@brianhurtado7089 Please expand on this, as you imply great knowledge. I'm truly interested in your reasoning.

​ @Caeruleus vm Hello, Caeruleus. Expanding on this, fully, would require (at minimum) a full-on Ted Talk... However, the expansion on that for which you asked is: Yes, the Constitution DOES protect many of the rights that "Larry" claims that it does not. Moreover, there is absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution that protects the "right" to abortion. Iat's not a right. I wouldn't even call it a privilege. It is a serious, moral life-choice. As such, it's not the government's business; nor is it within their power to control, in any way. With respect to Larry's monologue (of pedantic diatribe), the most critical of the Bill of rights to read is the tenth. Why? Because the Tenth Amendment delegates to the State, anything NOT specifically placed under the purview of the Federal Government. This is critical to the discussion, because the reversal of Roe v. Wade... ***DOES NOT*** ... remove the right to an abortion. It simply puts the matter into the hands of the State (where it has always belonged). Further, those that are decrying that the Supreme court is trampling their rights have likely never read it. Much the same as a christian that makes claims about "morality" that are NEVER stated in the bible, Larry is making claims about "rights" that are absolutely incorrect and have NO support within __THE CONSTITUTION__, and he is completely wrong in nearly everything he states in this video. I encourage you to read the bill of rights, specifically, and then read the remaining amendments. These are the primary LIMITATIONS upon the authority of central governance of the population ... by consent of the goverened... Those who listen to Lawrence O'Donnell as though he is a worthwhile source of information are not seeking information or truth. They are seeking to hear their preconceived perceptions regurgitated back to them from someone with an extensive vocabulary. He is a part of the "misinformation industrial complex." I listen to him for a purpose delineated within the Sun Tzu: In order to defeat your enemy, you must fully know and understand him. Lawrence O'Donnell is the enemy. Whether you accept it, or not, he is your enemy, too.

At all! The leak was necessary, honestly

Yes,man....👍👍👍

Amen 🙏🏿 💯

When one half of the country has to constantly look to the supreme court to save them from the other half, maybe it is time to admit that the country is built on a broken system.

Neither is the White House. Release all conversation between Demented Biden and Zelensky, Putin and Xi.

And,they luv to pick pick on Joe ......Reagan was"duh" and they hid it,Nancy ,then,was the power,and u know if.✌️

Reagan always was stupid.

Relevance?

Alzheimers is cognitive decline. In case there was some question about that.

@@erikehlert Lawrence draws a lot of parallels between Trump and Reagan, and stated that there was serious discussion about using the 25th to remove Trump, so it's worth pointing out that the same was true of Reagan, though a lot less publicly.

@@MM-kv8uu Utterly ridiculous. Although I would venture to guess that at least HALF of those who claim to don't REALLY buy into the nonsense. It is profitable.

Agreed.

No one on the Right will find this argument the least bit convincing.

@@AtomicBuffalo Agreed. Fortunately they're just an ignorant, brain dead minority who likewise believe in witches. The majority just needs to make itself heard, take charge.

@@AtomicBuffalo Nobody on the right has a brain or a soul, so that's par for course.

💯

Sure, but with Manchin and Sinema on our side .how can we lose.

I love 💜him

YAZZZZZZZZ!!!!! Love him!!!

lawrence has graduated: America's Guardian Angel kudos please to the angel-legion staff that put this Evidence of Critical Thinking together..

.......👍........

That's what I was thinking too! He (Alito) by his own STUPID 'logic' would basically render the Supreme Court ineffectual, pointless, a buch of empty tittles. I mean *"judicial review"* is as you pointed out is NOT mentioned anywhere in the constitution and is literally their *ace in the hole,* it's what makes them, the so called "SCOTUS" even remotely important as a branch of government.

Thank you for making that excellent point!!

And it actually does not matter nor is relevant as the argument against the law has nothing to do with Religion… 🙄

@@Jerome616 Right. That’s why the death penalty is illegal. Wait…

@@Nobddy exactly, we are not a theocracy nor could we become one thanks to the *drum roll* CONSTITUTION!!! lol

@@gregferguson7737 yep and that was wrong.

Term limits for everyone....SCOTUS included.

Abortion is legal in the UK. Maybe fighting that war wasn't such a good idea.

15th Century England committed genocide.

War is exactly what white nationalist want. They push as far as they can because they know the threat of war helps them get away with it. Like putin is doing with nukes.

@@respectfulwisdom9405 Which country/civilisation *doesn't* have a few skeletons in their cupboard ? The real shame would be to not learn from history and try to be better.

@@respectfulwisdom9405 yeah so did Americans to the natives

Your right. And all gun laws are unconstitutional.

I know right! I killed some stranger in the PRIVACY of my own home and the police are totally not respecting my 4th amendment rights! Such an injustice..😢

4th and 5th amendments are supposed to protect privacy from the government.

@Hunters Laptop uh it completely does. In fact, the 4th and 5th amendments protect privacy, but not totally.

They'll say whatever they want it to mean and misinterpret it to suit their desires.

@Hunters Laptop The Constitution is an outline...not a menu.

He shall be tried for treason.

His whole argument falls apart when asked: why don't you pass a specific amendment rather than making up interpretations. That was the original intent. So, you wanted updated fundamental right? Get an amendment done! You can't have judgments make up gibberish interpretations based on what they feel instead of the law as written. It also circumvents the power of congress to pass laws. The failure to pass new laws is a failure to convince others something is needed.

Democrats have ran this country the majority of the time , each time they gave themselves more power ,if you think Republicans have more power you can thank Democrats for giving the government that power . Democrats are taking your freedom and you're too blind to see.

Excellent journalism.

The political system in the US. is rigged to require an ultra-super majority to override the authority of the ruling oligarchs that pull the strings of the Republican party. If the day ever arrives when that ultra-super majority is attained, they will abolish voting altogether. Those ruling oligarchs do not care one way or the other about abortion, for it is neither an asset or a liability for them, but they do want the votes of the anti-choice zealots who are no more than a quarter of the population, but will eventually have their way on 100% of the policy. They will not be stopped until they are stopped.

@@votive3946 the only true 100% birth control is abstinence or to have a woman's ovaries removed or a vasectomy. Other birth control is flawed and doesn't always work. If a person is married do you think the marriage will last very long when practicing abstinence?

Amen 🙏🏿 💯

Lawrence is 100% right on with his commentary.

Bahahahahahaha

Indeed it's sickening 😠😔

You literally vote on them - Abortion is evil, evil has no rights.

That’s because we live in a republic.

The framers of our Constitution knew & approved of the "undemocratic meaning disproportionate" nature of the Senate. They knew tiny Rhode Island would have same # of Senators as New York. It was to offset (like English House of Lords) the proportionate "democratic " nature of House of Representatives. The Senate is currently worthless because of its self imposed rules including the filibuster & 60 vote requirement designed to give just one Senator or a minority of senators the power to hold up legislation for all. This plus corrupt campaign funding has brought us to this low point for both Senate & SCOTUS. Same root problem really.

The simplest solution does not require a Constitutional amendment & it fixes Electoral College until it can be removed formally. Make House of Representatives truly proportionate (as in 1 man 1 vote) AGAIN by striking down the law called Apportionment Act of 1929 which limits Congress to 435 Representatives. Peg every seat to population tied to the smallest district in the U.S. Use US Census to adjust every 10 years. In 2020 census, smallest would be Wyoming's sole congressional district (currently Liz Cheney's seat) representing 581,000 people. Congress would grow 30% from 435 to 567 overnight to fairly represent 329.5 million people AND number of ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes would also expand 30% to MATCH each states delegation. Thus, Californians would have a true proportionate voice in electing President again instead of only 70% of their fair share based on population.

enjoy the recession, crime, open boarders and china first agenda along with homeless numbers through the roof lets go brandon FJB....

And Biden is putting the final nail in the coffin.

@@joelostrie Anyone who feels like posting an meme like "go brandon" is just affirming how shallow their understanding of what is going on in the world is. It is a saying that at best screams hate fueled ignorance and at worst suggests someone who would rather follow a messianic cult leader ahead of caring for America. It is neither particularly clever or helpful...in any way. Try thinking about what your message is saying. It certainly isn't one that is pro-American!

Yes, Lawrence has been right on the mark lately! 🎯

I've rarely seen him this angry. He is righteously angry, and isn't mincing words about what is happening.

Ok, now everyone could know. And what will be the consequences? Correct: none. What a pity.

Bravo Lawrence Bravo

Blah ....blah....blah......as late as 1692......it seems like yesterday to him because he is old.

Women of all ethnicities thank u this day Lawrence!

Yes, Lawrence has an outstanding record of fair commentary on matters of race in America.

I am Canadian and a retired social worker. I believe that here, we just repealed a criminal law against abortion, and done, no longer a crime. I object though to having no legal limit on the developmental term or gestation period. I mean how can any woman agree to surgically aborting a full term baby, or even at six months? Not to mention how difficult it must be on a woman's reproductive health. So I have to ask, does R v W place any gestational time limit on when surgical abortions can be performed? Do progressive Americans support late term abortion? There is now a morning after pill that can be taken. I think it prevents implantation of a fertilized egg. Is that pill legal in the country? And is it accessible? Wouldn't that satisfy or resolve the legal debates. All I hear is the threat to privacy rights, and a woman's right to her own body. And I know that won the R v W argument in the first place. But don't those questions overlook the main divide which concerns the legal question of personhood and rights of the child as in the UN Charter. When did individuation begin in your child development? Certainly we know neurologically, scientifically that it was prior to birth. When can a child be recognized as a person in its own right, and not as an it, or a belonging or an object? And shouldn't personhood be protected nationally? At one time, we women were not recognized as 'persons' either under the law. We were objects, belongings, considered to be less valuable than.. For these and other reasons , I think women need to consider the issue of abortion more broadly perhaps beginning with the UN Declaration on a child's right to life.

@@Madmen604 There is no such thing as late term abortion. That is called "birth." Doctors and Nurses use incubators to try to save the life of ANY child born after about 6 months, unless that child is severely physically malformed to the point that life is not likely and any quality of life is absurd to expect. Oh, there may be some very rich people who can bribe a doctor to abort after 6 months, but why would a doctor do so when there is no personal reward for taking that risk to their license? It would take a seriously mentally ill or very greedy doctor or nurse to commit such an act, and it's just not done in reality unless it at the behest of someone like Dumpy Donny Trumpy with a big bribe attached. Well, a big PROMISED bribe, anyway, as he seldom pays his bills. The horror stories that the reactionary politicians and talking heads tell of such acts are largely just lies. Or they omit that fact that the fetus would have been born without a brain or a spine, or with some other dire physical abnormality and would put the Mother's life at risk trying to carry it to term. Those talking heads omit a LOT of details from their horror stories, which means they cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Don't worry about such things. Once a fetus can be viable outside the womb, the medical community has a duty that they take seriously to preserve the child's life if it has a fair chance of being successful.

The true irony is Alito saying the constitution makes no mention of abortion and the only mention of it in the Bible is a set of instructions on how to perform one.

👍👍👍

Excellent and fitting quote!

Exactly killing humans should be illegal. The right to life is above all rights. The baby is not part of the mother. And if u don't want children get sterilized

Biden, and MSNBC never tell the truth.

And a little poison in the right place. -- Pootin

The six include Sotomayor who's clearly not right wing. Also Roberts apparently doesn't support Alito's opinion. This court is definitely extreme though.

@@loxodoncyclotis1823 O.K., it is five extreme right wing Roman Catholics sitting on the bench of the S.C.

Hahahahahahahahahaha 😂😂😂🤡🤡🤡

You know Roe vs Wade is based off a lie right.

@@BROU-bb2uc I envy your knowledge; please enlighten us as to what the lie is that you are referring to. Thanks!

It was based on privacy laws. So how is that a lie?

The religious programming causes their brains to constantly believe that the perfected existence was back in the past somewhere, because the Garden of Eden story is in the mythological past. Getting right wingers to believe that the 'Best is yet to come!' is difficult, despite their rather silly and heavily ridiculed recent attempt at branding it.

What morality?

Barbarism in full display in the 21'st Century. They'd claim that the Earth was flat if they could get away with it...

Indeed 👍

It's nonsense. Abortion shouldn't be decided by the Supreme Court. The states should have the power under the 10th amendment to decide how to rule on legality and limits on it. For example: The people of Alabama might have vastly different views on abortion than of people in California. We already do this on gun laws and the death penalty and various other controversial issues.

@@thomasorchard States cannot vitiate constitutional rights. I’m sure you remember the good old days, from your point of view, that states did not allow blacks to sit at the counter of certain restaurants, that blacks could not go to certain schools, that certain people could not vote because of their gender, that people had to take test before they could vote, and that only tax paying citizens could vote. States are not the arbiters of constitutional rights.

Total crap! Quit drinking the KoolAid

Yes the logic is really bad

80 million killed and you don't care. Going along with murder makes you an accomplice.

Evil has no rights - Abortion will be outlawed.

It is so unfair! How many wymen had anything to say in what this lug white-man Alito wrote?

DID YOU JUST SAY THAT.....PEOPLE WHO LOUDLY ADMIT THEY BELIEVE IN VIRGIN BIRTHS and INVISIBLE SKY DADDY might be insane. YOU ARE MORE INSANE: YOU TOLERATED THIS LITERAL INSANITY and Normalized these sick super-nazis. RELIGION is the most EVIL and murderous force in history! AND YOU ALL JUST SHRUGGED!

👍👍👍👍

It was spot on!

😂😂😂😂😂

Atheism is not the State Religion. Abortion is evil, evil has no rights.

"There's no way the justices are fair and impartial because of their believe in religious doctrine" Fair and impartial means being fully restricted to the moral beliefs of MacAutomationTips, and any moral beliefs that do not rest on purely pragmatic arguments from the standpoint that humans are mere material animals with no metaphysical properties need to be kept out of politics. "Separation of church and state" does not mean "Only nihilistic atheists should have political power with which to wholly dictate to religious people what their rights are". Good luck trying to enforce the absolute non-participation in public office on over 60% of the population.

Also, conservatism in a nutshell. They would be happy if time suddenly stopped and we could all live a short, ignorant, filthy and disease-ridden life some time during the Middle Ages. Conservatives hold it to be true that everything was better in the past, the further back, the better.

This kind of malarkey really gets Lawrence going and I love him for it. Really, he’s been my favorite for the last 6 years because of this kind of thing.

@@stellashepherd3229 I agree. He’s really good. He writes so well.

Especially on our dimes and cents

The right to travel is definitely in the Constitution......thanks for showing us that you've never even read the Constitution.

Your statement is like saying "The constitution doesn't say you can breathe so that would mean that no one can breathe". Like stfu. The SCOTUS can't just pull random rights out of thin air. It is Congress's job to amend the constitution, not the Supreme Court. Jeez. You people are so inept and immoral.

@@TheChopf26 And because I know you don't actually give a single fuxk about what it actually says, and will just probably "report" my comment so no one sees the proof of you being completely and utterlly fuxking wrong: I'll paste the entire Constitution for you I know you've never read it, because of course you didn't.

@@TheChopf26 lol yep, you reported it. Typical lol

I expect the Supreme Court will soon bring back witch burning and rename as the Court of the Inquisition. Then have every woman in possession of a broom or Black Cat burned at the stake.

@@riskyron1416 - Abortion will be outlawed.

Gabriel Works for MSNBC

@@GermanConquistador08 there IS a solution to the problem that would stop the VAST MAJORITY of abortions and unwanted pregnancies from happening. The BEST way to prevent abortions and unwanted pregnancies is to make sure all the men in the country get a reversible vasectomy! In fact, if we mandated by law that all males in this country get a reversible vasectomy by their 18th birthday, then the need for abortions and then number of unwanted pregnancies would plummet! Those who refuse would be jailed, of course, until they agree to undergo the procedure. And it would be entirely legal, because it would follow the same principle that the reactionary "Justices" are using to overtune Roe v Wade... that Bodily Autonomy is NOT a Right guaranteed by the enumerated Rights clause of the Constitution. By taking the Right to Bodily Autonomy away from Women, they are taking it away from Men as well! So it would be perfectly legal to pass a law requiring that every male get a vasectomy from age 18 up to age 100, since there are tales of men procreating late in life. There is no form of birth control available to Women that is 100% effective, except hysterectomy. Even tubal ligation can lead to ectopic pregnancies! And hysterectomy is permanent. But a man can become termporarily sterile with a couple of hours in a doctor's office and a local anesthetic! And it's usually covered by insurance, whereas a voluntary hysterectomy is not. As it turns out THE MAIN CAUSE OF UNWANTED PREGNANCY IS MALE FERTILITY AND IRRESPONSIBILITY! But we can fix that as a Nation, eastily, with a minimum of investment. And if they want the vasectomy reversed, all they need is a signed contract with a woman of legal age who agrees to breed with them or carry for them, in the case of a surrogate, stating the enforceable responsibilities of each person involved. That way the child would be protected AFTER it was born as well as before. After pregnancy is accomplished, you would have 3 months to get the vasectomy again. And you would not be creating any little lives that you refuse to be held responsible for! Remember, the thing YOU think is the main cause of the need for abortion (since you may not consider the medically diagnosed dire threat to the life of the Mother a need) is really MALE FERTILITY AND IRRESPONSIBILITY! So this fixes that problem cheaply, easily, and in one day for each procedure! And it's usually covered by insurance! Let's fix the problem with VASECTOMIES FOR ALL MALES! If you are against abortion then you would certainly be for this! Right "GermanConquistador"? Let's hear your opinion on this great proposal for dealing with unwanted pregnancies in this country?

It also does not include a supreme court. If we're being "originalists" and all.

I dunno, it might allow flintlock pistols, too... /s

Safe by modern standards, no, but then lots of medicine at that time was unsafe (and ineffective!) by today's standards. Abortion was available, though, and generally legal in early pregnancy. Alito is wrong on the "deeply rooted in American history" claim. It's actually blanket bans on abortion that are not deeply rooted. Most of them didn't come about until the post civil war era.

Imagine robbing a bank at musket-point... I have one shot, who's getting it? 😅

🤣🤣

Yes 😄👍

I agree.

O'Donnell has an intense case of TDS. What a petty and bitter man.

Brillant! Yes, this is one of most powerful speeches I've seen. Too bad that no democratic candidate can match it. If they could, they wouldn't need to spend all their time fundraising on RU-vid only to lose in the fall. With just that passion of speech, they could win in a landslide in the fall.

Abortion - Evil and Murderous.

Just as most of the Founders wanted. They saw the danger in a theocracy.

Eve and the serpent? Didn't the bible say that women need to suffer for the sin of ... never mind it's too disgusting to even remember. The bible for heavens sake is one of the most anti-woman documents written.

@@virginiaoflaherty2983 True That!

@@virginiaoflaherty2983 that is because it is political and men believe they are superior to women. It is someone's version of what they think laws should be and women should be slaves to men. Do you think it would have the same laws from God if a woman wrote it?

Some men would be more than fine with that.

He is just getting better and better!

Tell me you know nothing about the reasons behind it all without telling me you know nothing.

👍

And yet a women's right to bodily autonomy was passed into law in 1967 in the UK, just 3 years after the US finally outlawed segregation and 6 years before women in the US were granted the same freedom. We the people indeed!

Magna Carta went some way to a Democratic idea, but the King or Queen were always the representatives of the God and therefore had the last word. I like the Scots, one of my ancestors is William Wallace, and they’re right.

The Bill of Rights is a plagiarization of the Magna Carta which gives the lower class some rights but no real power.

Sovereignty of "the crown."

Hypocrites BIGLY 😠

What Lawrence states is that the constitution doesn't say a person has a right to privacy, hmm. Well if that's the case, one can say that about every move, action any and everyone makes. Does executive privilege come under that decision.

Cause they don't want their crimes to become public.

Great question! Would like to know the answer to that

@@louisecollard2320 Operative word is "explicitly". In normal countires natural rights do not need to be specifically named in a paper. Only in religious backwards states that may be needed, as rules there often go against human logic or moralty.

Creating “Freedoms” through Judicial Activism while utilizing the same method to subvert and destroy explicitly stated freedoms in the Bill of Rights is essentially the “Active Measures” initiated by the KGB against America during the Cold War.

This feels like a movie where the wise and elders make all important decisions now I can see M.T. G. being a supreme court judge. This country is not democratic at all.

@@rayhays7005 we’re a Constitutional Republic that’s been derailed by the most degenerate of Leftists.

And two senators per state.

Yes. Let’s let ballot box stuffing Demo(n)crats determine who the president is

Ahhh I see Democratic norms are only important if they’re in your own political interests

@@razaahmad9133 Wyoming having the same power as New York is not a democratic norm.

@@j.r.weaver9110 well it actually is based on what we have agreed to under the constitution Now if you want to get rid of the senate at least be honest and own the fact that you also want to completely upend and alter our system of government and you also have to relinquish your right to accuse conservatives of disregarding institutional norms