[OT] Supreme Court strikes down controversial NY law about public carry of firearms
21 views
Skip to first unread message
Rhino
Jun 23, 2022, 11:32:46 AM (5 days ago) Jun 23
to
I imagine that Ed at least will be very happy about this development
while the Leftist contingent will be furious....
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-new-york-bruen/index.html
--
Rhino
while the Leftist contingent will be furious....
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-new-york-bruen/index.html
--
Rhino
moviePig
Jun 23, 2022, 11:44:41 AM (5 days ago) Jun 23
to
On 6/23/2022 11:32 AM, Rhino wrote:
> I imagine that Ed at least will be very happy about this development
> while the Leftist contingent will be furious....
>
> ...
> I imagine that Ed at least will be very happy about this development
> while the Leftist contingent will be furious....
>
Might depend on what definition of "Arms" is used...
BTR1701
Jun 23, 2022, 12:59:30 PM (5 days ago) Jun 23
to
On Jun 23, 2022 at 8:32:37 AM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offlin...@example.com>
wrote:
> I imagine that Ed at least will be very happy about this development
> while the Leftist contingent will be furious....
>
>
> https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-new-york-bruen/index.html
New York's "proper-cause requirement" violates the 14nth Amendment by
preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from
exercising their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for
self-defense.
Let the leftist rioting commence!
wrote:
> I imagine that Ed at least will be very happy about this development
> while the Leftist contingent will be furious....
>
>
> https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-new-york-bruen/index.html
preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from
exercising their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for
self-defense.
Let the leftist rioting commence!
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 23, 2022, 1:02:31 PM (5 days ago) Jun 23
to
enacted a century ago. They used it as a plot point on a Barney Miller
episode 4 decades ago.
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 23, 2022, 1:06:27 PM (5 days ago) Jun 23
to
implications because the applicant had to prove need but the bureaucracy
had forever applied the law arbitrarily, approving nearly no one except
the occassional jeweler carrying gemstones outside his shop.
BTR1701
Jun 23, 2022, 2:00:59 PM (5 days ago) Jun 23
to
On Jun 23, 2022 at 10:06:23 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <a...@chinet.com>
wrote:
I finished reading the whole thing. A bad day for the gun-grabbers to be sure,
but still a *ton* of wiggle room for them. Presumably now NY, NJ, CA, and HI
will rewrite their laws to provide "shall issue" permits, but will make their
"objective criteria" unnecessarily burdensome (excessive training and
proficiency requirements, high-cost insurance, requirements to re-qualify
frequently, etc.).
I'm also a bit concerned about this "text, history, and tradition" test
instead of something relatively straightforward like strict scrutiny. Now when
evaluating regulations we've got to pore through a bunch of dusty and
long-forgotten laws from Colonial America through (maybe?) the adoption of the
14th Amendment to see if the law in question had an historical analog. While
that will almost certainly knock out some of the more recent ideas like
purchase limits, micro-stamping, and the like, having one's fundamental rights
be dependent on what was permitted centuries ago when the law was less
developed and things that should have been questioned simply were not gives me
pause.
wrote:
but still a *ton* of wiggle room for them. Presumably now NY, NJ, CA, and HI
will rewrite their laws to provide "shall issue" permits, but will make their
"objective criteria" unnecessarily burdensome (excessive training and
proficiency requirements, high-cost insurance, requirements to re-qualify
frequently, etc.).
I'm also a bit concerned about this "text, history, and tradition" test
instead of something relatively straightforward like strict scrutiny. Now when
evaluating regulations we've got to pore through a bunch of dusty and
long-forgotten laws from Colonial America through (maybe?) the adoption of the
14th Amendment to see if the law in question had an historical analog. While
that will almost certainly knock out some of the more recent ideas like
purchase limits, micro-stamping, and the like, having one's fundamental rights
be dependent on what was permitted centuries ago when the law was less
developed and things that should have been questioned simply were not gives me
pause.
Ed Stasiak
Jun 23, 2022, 3:43:58 PM (5 days ago) Jun 23
to
> BTR1701
> > Rhino
I thought was kinda surprising.
> Let the leftist rioting commence!
Excuse me, but that's _mostly peaceful_ rioting, xer!
> > Rhino
> >
> > I imagine that Ed at least will be very happy about this development
> > while the Leftist contingent will be furious....
I actually got a news text notice from Apple on my phone about it, which
> > I imagine that Ed at least will be very happy about this development
> > while the Leftist contingent will be furious....
I thought was kinda surprising.
> Let the leftist rioting commence!
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 23, 2022, 3:58:18 PM (5 days ago) Jun 23
to
BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>On Jun 23, 2022 at 10:06:23 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>Jun 23, 2022 at 8:32:37 AM PDT, Rhino <no_offlin...@example.com>:
>On Jun 23, 2022 at 10:06:23 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>I imagine that Ed at least will be very happy about this development
>>>>while the Leftist contingent will be furious....
>>>>https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-new-york-bruen/index.html
>>>New York's "proper-cause requirement" violates the 14nth Amendment by
>>>preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from
>>>exercising their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for
>>>self-defense.
>>>Let the leftist rioting commence!
>>It's more than that. It had both due process and equal protection
>>implications because the applicant had to prove need but the bureaucracy
>>had forever applied the law arbitrarily, approving nearly no one except
>>the occassional jeweler carrying gemstones outside his shop.
>I finished reading the whole thing. A bad day for the gun-grabbers to be sure,
>but still a *ton* of wiggle room for them. Presumably now NY, NJ, CA, and HI
>will rewrite their laws to provide "shall issue" permits, but will make their
>"objective criteria" unnecessarily burdensome (excessive training and
>proficiency requirements, high-cost insurance, requirements to re-qualify
>frequently, etc.).
due process? I hate arbitrary laws, which this one cleary was.
>I'm also a bit concerned about this "text, history, and tradition" test
>instead of something relatively straightforward like strict scrutiny. Now when
>evaluating regulations we've got to pore through a bunch of dusty and
>long-forgotten laws from Colonial America through (maybe?) the adoption of the
>14th Amendment to see if the law in question had an historical analog. While
>that will almost certainly knock out some of the more recent ideas like
>purchase limits, micro-stamping, and the like, having one's fundamental rights
>be dependent on what was permitted centuries ago when the law was less
>developed and things that should have been questioned simply were not gives me
>pause.
and a textualist.
BTR1701
Jun 23, 2022, 4:33:56 PM (5 days ago) Jun 23
to
On Jun 23, 2022 at 12:43:53 PM PDT, "Ed Stasiak" <edstas...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Holy moly, Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion in the Bruen case in which
he took a fat shit all over Stephen Breyer's dissent:
In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate
purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent's lengthy introductory
section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the
dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred
in recent years? Does the dissent think that laws like New York's prevent or
deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be
stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home?
And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings
near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in
this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.
What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide?
Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes
will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully
take them outside?
The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, but
it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question
presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a
domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws
like New York's?
The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, but
what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed
to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our
decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully
possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun
by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars
the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).1
The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands-- nearly 400
million-- but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the
question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home
for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the
knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home. And while the
dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country's high
level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the
dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause
law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.
No one apparently knows how many of the 400 million privately held guns are in
the hands of criminals, but there can be little doubt that many muggers and
rapists are armed and are undeterred by the Sullivan Law. Each year, the New
York City Police Department (NYPD) confiscates thousands of guns, and it is
fair to assume that the number of guns seized is a fraction of the total
number held unlawfully. The police cannot disarm every person who acquires a
gun for use in criminal activity; nor can they provide bodyguard protection
for the State's nearly 20 million residents or the 8.8 million people who live
in New York City. Some of these people live in high-crime neighborhoods. Some
must traverse dark and dangerous streets in order to reach their homes after
work or other evening activities. Some are members of groups whose members
feel especially vulnerable. And some of these people reasonably believe that
unless they can brandish or, if necessary, use a handgun in the case of
attack, they may be murdered, raped, or suffer some other serious injury.
Ordinary citizens frequently use firearms to protect themselves from criminal
attack. According to survey data, defensive firearm use occurs up to 2.5
million times per year. (Brief for Law Enforcement Groups et al. as Amici
Curiae 5.) A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report commissioned by
former President Barack Obama reviewed the literature surrounding firearms use
and noted that "[s]tudies that directly assessed the effect of actual
defensive uses of guns... have found consistently lower injury rates among
gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective
strategies." [Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, Priorities
for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence 15–16 (2013)
(referenced in Brief for Independent Women's Law Center as Amicus Curiae
19–20)].
wrote:
he took a fat shit all over Stephen Breyer's dissent:
In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate
purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent's lengthy introductory
section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the
dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred
in recent years? Does the dissent think that laws like New York's prevent or
deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be
stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home?
And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings
near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in
this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.
What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide?
Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes
will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully
take them outside?
The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, but
it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question
presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a
domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws
like New York's?
The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, but
what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed
to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our
decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully
possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun
by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars
the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).1
The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands-- nearly 400
million-- but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the
question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home
for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the
knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home. And while the
dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country's high
level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the
dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause
law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.
No one apparently knows how many of the 400 million privately held guns are in
the hands of criminals, but there can be little doubt that many muggers and
rapists are armed and are undeterred by the Sullivan Law. Each year, the New
York City Police Department (NYPD) confiscates thousands of guns, and it is
fair to assume that the number of guns seized is a fraction of the total
number held unlawfully. The police cannot disarm every person who acquires a
gun for use in criminal activity; nor can they provide bodyguard protection
for the State's nearly 20 million residents or the 8.8 million people who live
in New York City. Some of these people live in high-crime neighborhoods. Some
must traverse dark and dangerous streets in order to reach their homes after
work or other evening activities. Some are members of groups whose members
feel especially vulnerable. And some of these people reasonably believe that
unless they can brandish or, if necessary, use a handgun in the case of
attack, they may be murdered, raped, or suffer some other serious injury.
Ordinary citizens frequently use firearms to protect themselves from criminal
attack. According to survey data, defensive firearm use occurs up to 2.5
million times per year. (Brief for Law Enforcement Groups et al. as Amici
Curiae 5.) A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report commissioned by
former President Barack Obama reviewed the literature surrounding firearms use
and noted that "[s]tudies that directly assessed the effect of actual
defensive uses of guns... have found consistently lower injury rates among
gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective
strategies." [Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, Priorities
for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence 15–16 (2013)
(referenced in Brief for Independent Women's Law Center as Amicus Curiae
19–20)].
trotsky
Jun 23, 2022, 7:06:30 PM (4 days ago) Jun 23
to
next time school kids have their entire heads blown off by assault weapons!
Words fail me. I've called you an anonymous piece of dog shit a million
times. "Words are such feeble things" to quote George Orwell. It's
really hard to describe how much you and all your white supremacist dog
shit buddies are wastes of life. "Dog shit" is too nice a description.
RichA
Jun 23, 2022, 7:13:30 PM (4 days ago) Jun 23
to
trotsky
Jun 23, 2022, 7:22:54 PM (4 days ago) Jun 23
to
On 6/23/2022 1:00 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2022 at 10:06:23 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <a...@chinet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>> Jun 23, 2022 at 8:32:37 AM PDT, Rhino <no_offlin...@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I imagine that Ed at least will be very happy about this development
>>>> while the Leftist contingent will be furious....
>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-new-york-bruen/index.html
>>
>>> New York's "proper-cause requirement" violates the 14nth Amendment by
>>> preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from
>>> exercising their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for
>>> self-defense.
>>
>>> Let the leftist rioting commence!
>>
>> It's more than that. It had both due process and equal protection
>> implications because the applicant had to prove need but the bureaucracy
>> had forever applied the law arbitrarily, approving nearly no one except
>> the occassional jeweler carrying gemstones outside his shop.
>
> I finished reading the whole thing. A bad day for the gun-grabbers to be sure,
> but still a *ton* of wiggle room for them.
"Wiggle room" doesn't mean dick, it's still right wing assholes turning
> On Jun 23, 2022 at 10:06:23 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <a...@chinet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>> Jun 23, 2022 at 8:32:37 AM PDT, Rhino <no_offlin...@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I imagine that Ed at least will be very happy about this development
>>>> while the Leftist contingent will be furious....
>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-new-york-bruen/index.html
>>
>>> New York's "proper-cause requirement" violates the 14nth Amendment by
>>> preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from
>>> exercising their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for
>>> self-defense.
>>
>>> Let the leftist rioting commence!
>>
>> It's more than that. It had both due process and equal protection
>> implications because the applicant had to prove need but the bureaucracy
>> had forever applied the law arbitrarily, approving nearly no one except
>> the occassional jeweler carrying gemstones outside his shop.
>
> I finished reading the whole thing. A bad day for the gun-grabbers to be sure,
> but still a *ton* of wiggle room for them.
our country further into a shithole. That's all you stand for.
JG Rove
Jun 24, 2022, 4:42:37 PM (4 days ago) Jun 24
to
Ed Stasiak
Jun 25, 2022, 5:31:13 AM (3 days ago) Jun 25
to
> BTR1701
https://ibb.co/0GS6pn7
> See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent
> think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent
> years?
>
https://ibb.co/BKpT5R4
>
> Holy moly, Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion in the Bruen case in which
> he took a fat shit all over Stephen Breyer's dissent:
>
> In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose
> can possibly be served by most of the dissent's lengthy introductory section.
https://i.postimg.cc/tgZ78DC9/burned.png
> Holy moly, Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion in the Bruen case in which
> he took a fat shit all over Stephen Breyer's dissent:
>
> In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose
> can possibly be served by most of the dissent's lengthy introductory section.
https://ibb.co/0GS6pn7
> See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent
> think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent
> years?
>
> Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows
> that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home?
>
> that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home?
>
> What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide?
>
>
> The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, but
> it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question
>
> it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question
>
> The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, but
> what does this have to do with the question
>
> what does this have to do with the question
>
> The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands-- nearly 400
> million-- but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the
> question
>
> million-- but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the
> question
>
> the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause
> law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.
>
> No one apparently knows how many of the 400 million privately held guns are in
> the hands of criminals,
>
> law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.
>
> No one apparently knows how many of the 400 million privately held guns are in
> the hands of criminals,
>
> The police cannot disarm every person who acquires a gun for use in criminal
> activity; nor can they provide bodyguard protection
>
> activity; nor can they provide bodyguard protection
>
> in New York City. Some of these people live in high-crime neighborhoods.
>
>
> Ordinary citizens frequently use firearms to protect themselves from criminal
> attack.
https://i.postimg.cc/zXzC4Zm5/daaamn.gif
> attack.
https://ibb.co/BKpT5R4
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 25, 2022, 9:14:54 AM (3 days ago) Jun 25
to
BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>. . .
>I finished reading the whole thing. A bad day for the gun-grabbers to be sure,
>but still a *ton* of wiggle room for them. Presumably now NY, NJ, CA, and HI
>will rewrite their laws to provide "shall issue" permits, but will make their
>"objective criteria" unnecessarily burdensome (excessive training and
>proficiency requirements, high-cost insurance, requirements to re-qualify
>frequently, etc.).
>I'm also a bit concerned about this "text, history, and tradition" test
>instead of something relatively straightforward like strict scrutiny.
Well, you know, Thomas despises the strict scrutiny test. It's just not
in the Constitution. He wants his own test.
>Now when
>evaluating regulations we've got to pore through a bunch of dusty and
>long-forgotten laws from Colonial America through (maybe?) the adoption of the
>14th Amendment to see if the law in question had an historical analog. While
>that will almost certainly knock out some of the more recent ideas like
>purchase limits, micro-stamping, and the like, having one's fundamental rights
>be dependent on what was permitted centuries ago when the law was less
>developed and things that should have been questioned simply were not gives me
>pause.
I was thinking about this the other day. I wondered if there is an
argument that could appeal to Thomas about how activitist the
Reconstruction-era Supreme Court was in narrowing application of the
14th Amendment in the Civil Rights Cases, and maybe reversing
Slaughterhouse. We lost the entire Privileges or Immunities clause which
would have been a stronger basis for lots of other rights. Thomas in
particular despises using Due Process as the foundational clause for
rights.
>>. . .
>I finished reading the whole thing. A bad day for the gun-grabbers to be sure,
>but still a *ton* of wiggle room for them. Presumably now NY, NJ, CA, and HI
>will rewrite their laws to provide "shall issue" permits, but will make their
>"objective criteria" unnecessarily burdensome (excessive training and
>proficiency requirements, high-cost insurance, requirements to re-qualify
>frequently, etc.).
>I'm also a bit concerned about this "text, history, and tradition" test
>instead of something relatively straightforward like strict scrutiny.
in the Constitution. He wants his own test.
>Now when
>evaluating regulations we've got to pore through a bunch of dusty and
>long-forgotten laws from Colonial America through (maybe?) the adoption of the
>14th Amendment to see if the law in question had an historical analog. While
>that will almost certainly knock out some of the more recent ideas like
>purchase limits, micro-stamping, and the like, having one's fundamental rights
>be dependent on what was permitted centuries ago when the law was less
>developed and things that should have been questioned simply were not gives me
>pause.
argument that could appeal to Thomas about how activitist the
Reconstruction-era Supreme Court was in narrowing application of the
14th Amendment in the Civil Rights Cases, and maybe reversing
Slaughterhouse. We lost the entire Privileges or Immunities clause which
would have been a stronger basis for lots of other rights. Thomas in
particular despises using Due Process as the foundational clause for
rights.
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 26, 2022, 4:08:53 PM (2 days ago) Jun 26
to
Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
through the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment! He would indeed
resurrect the Privileges or Immunities clause! He wrote this in his
concurring opinion in McDonald v. Chicago!
https://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/privileges-or-immunities-clause-alive-again/
Thus far, he's persuaded no one else to his side on this, but it would
surely be a huge leap forward in federal courts protecting liberty if
the Slaughter-House Cases were reversed!
suzeeq, if you care about this, read this Wikipedia page for a summary of the
issue. It's a really big deal, for the Supreme Court did everything it
could to contribute to the failure of Reconstruction, which led to the
Jim Crow era and 7 decades of setbacks for civil rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases
suzeeq
Jun 26, 2022, 4:33:40 PM (2 days ago) Jun 26
to
Meanwhile, did you hear what Representative Mary Miller of Illinois 15th
congressional district, said?
https://www.npr.org/live-updates/roe-v-wade-overturned-2022-06-26#a-republican-congresswoman-called-the-decision-a-historic-victory-for-white-life
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 26, 2022, 4:48:08 PM (2 days ago) Jun 26
to
suzeeq <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>. . .
>Meanwhile, did you hear what Representative Mary Miller of Illinois 15th
>congressional district, said?
>https://www.npr.org/live-updates/roe-v-wade-overturned-2022-06-26#a-republican-congresswoman-called-the-decision-a-historic-victory-for-white-life
Wow
She's completely insane. But wow.
Illinois lost congressional seats in the recent apportionment, so two
incumbants are running against each other in the Republican primary: Mary
Miller versus Rodney Davis. I like Davis. He's a decent man. Despite what
the article states, Davis is a conservative, not a moderate.
>. . .
>Meanwhile, did you hear what Representative Mary Miller of Illinois 15th
>congressional district, said?
>https://www.npr.org/live-updates/roe-v-wade-overturned-2022-06-26#a-republican-congresswoman-called-the-decision-a-historic-victory-for-white-life
She's completely insane. But wow.
Illinois lost congressional seats in the recent apportionment, so two
incumbants are running against each other in the Republican primary: Mary
Miller versus Rodney Davis. I like Davis. He's a decent man. Despite what
the article states, Davis is a conservative, not a moderate.
suzeeq
Jun 26, 2022, 5:02:39 PM (2 days ago) Jun 26
to
On 6/26/2022 1:48 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> suzeeq <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>
>> . . .
>
>> Meanwhile, did you hear what Representative Mary Miller of Illinois 15th
>> congressional district, said?
>> https://www.npr.org/live-updates/roe-v-wade-overturned-2022-06-26#a-republican-congresswoman-called-the-decision-a-historic-victory-for-white-life
>
> Wow
>
> She's completely insane. But wow.
Yeah. But that's how many on the right actually feel. She's the only one
> suzeeq <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>
>> . . .
>
>> Meanwhile, did you hear what Representative Mary Miller of Illinois 15th
>> congressional district, said?
>> https://www.npr.org/live-updates/roe-v-wade-overturned-2022-06-26#a-republican-congresswoman-called-the-decision-a-historic-victory-for-white-life
>
> Wow
>
> She's completely insane. But wow.
who's slipped and said it out loud.
BTR1701
Jun 26, 2022, 5:32:02 PM (2 days ago) Jun 26
to
On Jun 26, 2022 at 2:02:34 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
> On 6/26/2022 1:48 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> suzeeq <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>>
>>> . . .
>>
>>> Meanwhile, did you hear what Representative Mary Miller of Illinois 15th
>>> congressional district, said?
>>>
>>> https://www.npr.org/live-updates/roe-v-wade-overturned-2022-06-26#a-republican-congresswoman-called-the-decision-a-historic-victory-for-white-life
>>
>> Wow
>>
>> She's completely insane. But wow.
>
> Yeah. But that's how many on the right actually feel.
How do you know?
> On 6/26/2022 1:48 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> suzeeq <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>>
>>> . . .
>>
>>> Meanwhile, did you hear what Representative Mary Miller of Illinois 15th
>>> congressional district, said?
>>>
>>> https://www.npr.org/live-updates/roe-v-wade-overturned-2022-06-26#a-republican-congresswoman-called-the-decision-a-historic-victory-for-white-life
>>
>> Wow
>>
>> She's completely insane. But wow.
>
> Yeah. But that's how many on the right actually feel.
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 26, 2022, 6:08:31 PM (yesterday) Jun 26
to
deliberately appealing to a specific type of voter, and as long as she
attracts those votes, she'll continue to say things like that.
BTR1701
Jun 26, 2022, 6:12:17 PM (yesterday) Jun 26
to
feel.
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 26, 2022, 6:25:27 PM (yesterday) Jun 26
to
believes she can motivate enough Republican primary voters with that
rhetoric to help her beat Davis. If Miller's the nominee, then suzeeq is
correct at least with respect to Republicans in the new Illinois 15th.
If Davis wins, you can tell suzeeq she's wrong.
The Horny Goat
Jun 26, 2022, 6:34:13 PM (yesterday) Jun 26
to
Confederate states were readmitted to Union much too soon. And why
Hayes remains my choice for worst president ever.
trotsky
Jun 26, 2022, 8:30:41 PM (yesterday) Jun 26
to
attribution? You're a motherfucking hypocrite, you know that, right?
suzeeq
Jun 27, 2022, 12:54:30 AM (yesterday) Jun 27
to
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages