re: Justice Roberts sides with liberals.....again

You need to readily go frick yourself.

quote:

---

Abortion needs to be legal and readily available. The last thing we need is more unwanted children growing up to be criminals or on welfare.

---

I'm beginning to think the same way, hell let them kill their babies that'll mean there are less of them.

I fully support impeachment of John Roberts.

quote:

---

You need to readily go frick yourself.

---

Roberts is a gift that keeps on giving . . . to liberal causes.

quote:

---

It's not a baby. It's blob of protoplasm until viable outside of the womb.

---

What is viable? Is something that is completely unable to obtain on its own the nutrients to survive “viable”?

You need to have them first you pathetic excuse for a man.

quote:

---

until viable outside of the womb.

---

So you would restrict abortion at what week of pregnancy?

quote:

---

Justice Roberts sides with liberals.....again

---

What's new. frick him and frick George W.

quote:

---

Roberts cares deeply about things like the reputation of the Court, balance on the Court, and stare decisis. With the Hellerstedt case

---

Bullsh!t. I believe it's a combination of Odumbf*ck's spying paying dividends with Roberts and Roberts deep seated hatred of all things Trump.

Notice that Roberts came out F*CKING PUBLICLY to excoriate Trump for referring to liberal/Democrat v. conservative/Republican judges. But, he didn't say a F*CKING WORD when Ruthie the Scumbag was out on the campaign trail saying vile things about Trump.

Another problem with this "stare decisis" bullsh!t is that Roberts says in his concurring opinion that he still sticks by HIS earlier opinion that the law is perfectly valid from a Constitutional standpoint. He hasn't changed HIS position -- a position HE wrote in a dissent. So, basically he's saying that Louisiana's law is perfectly Constitutional but he's going to vote to strike it down. If it was something that involved a close call or something that a Justice ruled on years ago that the public has come to rely on, that's one thing. To blatantly strike down a Constitutional law for the sake of "the reputation of the court, balance of the Court, and stare decisis" is pure f*cking IGNORANCE. If anything his latest opinions have done nothing but tarnish the opinion of the Court and makes him look like someone who has been CLEARLY F*CKING COMPROMISED.