lox funny, every b.commer i've met or talked with or emailed with has unequivocally stated that you are a heinous person. just a piece of shit. i'm not blaming you for what i write in the sense that you have control. i am saying, you created, fostered and enforced an acrimonious, contentious and denigrating atmosphere and i am merely mirroring your behaviour, mostly as an example.
why am i pissed? because 4 shiteaters believe state should usurp constitutional law. now i know the progressive liberal shiteating scum in this country want foreign countries to pass laws that our country must enforce. and i know you eat the undigested beans out of a pile of Felipe Calderon's feces (then eat the feces itself). so i come on here to throw that shit in your shit eating grinned out face.
JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG and
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR join, dissenting.
In my view, JUSTICE STEVENS has demonstrated that
the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of “substantive
due process” does not include a general right to keep and
bear firearms for purposes of private self-defense. As he
argues, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment
with this objective in view. See ante, at 41–44 (dissenting
opinion). Unlike other forms of substantive liberty, the
carrying of arms for that purpose often puts others’ lives
at risk. See ante, at 35–37. And the use of arms for pri-
vate self-defense does not warrant federal constitutional
protection from state regulation. See ante, at 44–51.
The Court, however, does not expressly rest its opinion
upon “substantive due process” concerns. Rather, it di-
rects its attention to this Court’s “incorporation” prece-
dents and asks whether the Second Amendment right to
private self-defense is “fundamental” so that it applies to
the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. See ante,
at 11–19.
I shall therefore separately consider the question of
“incorporation.” I can find nothing in the Second Amend-
ment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could
warrant characterizing it as “fundamental” insofar as it
seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for pri-
more liberal shiteater fun!!
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) represented the North American Man-Boy Love Association pro bono (for free) in a Massachusetts case. The counter atttack to the ACLU is in motion Support & Review the ACLJ
Federal judge Dennis Chin denied the FBI a warrant in the notorious "Candyman" Internet sting case. The feds busted a child porn website and secured the names of Americans who did business with it. They then asked various judges for warrants to search the homes and computers of said individuals. Chin said no, because he believed one could do business with child pornographers and not commit a criminal act.
An American named Jorge Pabon Cruz distributed more than 8,000 pictures of children being raped, sexually abused, and brutalized during a three month period in 2001. Pabon Cruz advertised his sick site on other websites, one of which was named "childrape." Pabon Cruz trafficked in the most vile images imaginable including pictures of infants being raped.
In October 2002, this slut brain was convicted of advertising for the receipt, exchange, and distribution of child pornography and was sentenced to ten years in a federal prison. That was a mandatory sentence approved by a vote of Congress.
But the presiding federal judge in New York City, Gerard Lynch, publicly objected to the sentence, saying he would have given Pabon Cruz just five years. Lynch, who was appointed by President Clinton, as was Chin, protested loudly to their liberal media friends.
Judges Chin and Lynch witnessed the most vile acts adults can do to children short of murder. Yet these judges did not fully cooperate with a system trying to harshly punish the adults involved... adults who are literally destroying the lives of defenseless children. Add that to the incredible actions of the ACLU, which apparently believes an organization devoted solely to encouraging pedophilia and legalizing sex between children and adults is entitled to a free defense.
So the logical question is, aren't these judges and this so-called "civil liberties" organization enabling evil? The answer should be obvious.
The ACLU, which apparently believes an organization devoted solely to encouraging pedophilia and legalizing sex between children and adults is entitled to a free defense.
