Michael Ramirez for June 30, 2020

  1. Farmer
    jdeathlogan  about 1 year ago

    In 2013 the state of Texas passed a law that abortion providers would have to obtain difficult to get admission privileges to a nearby hospital to perform an abortion to insure the health of the woman patient, but whose clear intent was to restrict abortions in Texas. In the case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. (June 27, 2016), in a 5-3 decision US Supreme Court decided against Texas. John Roberts was one of the 3 judges that ruled for Texas.

    In the June 2020 Louisiana abortion case, that was very similar to the Texas case, John Roberts sided with the 4 Liberal judges to knock down the law. John did not agree with the liberals judges, he just said that the law had been settled by the 2016 ruling and he was right. He is not contradicting himself, he is following the law.

    Some conservatives and religious leaders seem determined to bring an extreme version of Sharia law to America.

     •  Reply
  2. Pat new 150
    Patjade Premium Member about 1 year ago

    Roberts may not have agreed with the ruling in 2013, but since it’s established law, he is willing to uphold it. The difference between a Supreme Court Justice and a RW lackwit puppet.

     •  Reply
  3. Cthulhu p1xg
    gorbag  about 1 year ago

    Well that certainly explains why they continue to avoid dealing with their unpleasant prior errors of judgement, like qualified immunity. “It’s settled law!”

     •  Reply
  4. Tf 117
    RAGs  about 1 year ago

    Ramirez believes that “Rule of Law” means that pseudo conservatives rule everyone else.

     •  Reply
  5. Mr haney
    NeedaChuckle Premium Member about 1 year ago

    It would be nice if the “Pro Lifers” would care about people’s lives who are BORN!! But they don’t.

     •  Reply
  6. Am. flag
    AmericanPie  about 1 year ago

    Deciding an issue by settled law is important, but not nearly as important as deciding an issue by Constitutional principle. If Justice Roberts believed the law was unconstitutional in 2013, to be consistent, it is STILL unconstitutional. Most infuriating!

     •  Reply
  7. Picture
    EdMeiller Premium Member about 1 year ago

    Poor Ramirez. He can’t stand it when things don’t go ‘his way’. Just wait until November. His head may well explode.

     •  Reply
  8. Missing large
    robcarroll1213  about 1 year ago

    “I’m Michael Ramirez and I hate America.”

     •  Reply
  9. Paul f rst  der doctor schnabel von rom  coloured version
    @Rad-ish  Premium Member about 1 year ago

    Ha ha your theft of a Supreme Court Justice blew up in your right wing face.

     •  Reply
  10. Picture
    RalphConti  about 1 year ago

    Yes, it really sucks when the Chief Justice doesn’t do what the Party wants. It’s almost like the liberals were right when they accused the conservatives of picking judges that will be biased.

     •  Reply
  11. 1  1  1     1 me and tree
    pc368dude  about 1 year ago

    Evangelicals = American Taliban

     •  Reply
  12. Albert einstein brain i6
    braindead Premium Member about 1 year ago

    David Binn has it right. Roberts is dedicated to the image of the SCOTUS being fair and balanced, so he sometimes votes ‘liberal’ on social issues.

    Which is upsetting to Trump Disciples.


    But whenever money or political influence is the issue, he is exactly what Republicans* wanted when he was nominated.

    Money is speech.

    Corporations are people.

    Them darkies don’t need no extry voting rights.



     •  Reply
  13. Smokey
    Zuhlamon Premium Member about 1 year ago

    Gawd, Ramirez sickens me.

     •  Reply
  14. Missing large
    ferddo  about 1 year ago

    How dare a hand-picked justice, gifted a position based upon his expected allegiances, turn into a RINO!

     •  Reply
  15. Missing large
    jhayesd31  about 1 year ago

    Kavanaugh said that Roe v Wade is “Settled Law” but yet he voted to al lbut outlaw abortions.

    But he was so Honest about Boofing, and his role in Vetting bush nominees and Not knowing ANYONE that accused him of inappropriate Sexual behavior.

     •  Reply
  16. Missing large
    jhayesd31  about 1 year ago

    Will Biden Expand the Supreme Court to 11 Judges? Why Not? If what Mitch did is just “Power Politics” so is Expanding the court. Its not Illegal.

     •  Reply
  17. Missing large
    1db  about 1 year ago

    However imperfectly people have conducted our representative republic under the constitution, the ‘idea of America’ is stated well in our founding document in the following quote:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.”

    This should inspire every citizen as each of us fulfills our duties as citizens, as clearly stated in our nation’s founding legal document:

    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    No, America isn’t perfect. The “people,” meaning citizens, are the sole responsible parties for the state of our nation (you know, “of the people, by the people, and for the people”). We have no one to blame but ourselves for not treasuring the ‘idea of America’ as embodied in the Declaration and the Constitution – and taking our role and duties as citizens seriously by holding our elected representatives accountable.

    While America isn’t perfect, it is a wonderful and inspiring idea, and worth working together constantly and always to make The United States of America a “more perfect union.”

    This is why controversial political decisions should be made by the representatives we elect to our federal, state, and local governments – and not by un-elected and duty-bound impartial judges who should be the umpires who make decisions based on the ‘Law’ (constitution and laws).

    Roberts seems at a minimum deeply conflicted and inconsistent with dramatically different rulings, and not in keeping with interpreting cases based on the constitution. Rule of Law is always better than Rule of Man.

     •  Reply
  18. Missing large
    The Love of Money is . . .  about 1 year ago

    Always the “finger pointing” . . . .

     •  Reply
  19. Picture
    ThomasBonsell  about 1 year ago

    These rulings show why conservatives should never be on the Supreme Court judging or interpretating a Constitution written by liberals.

    ArticleI, Section 8, says laws are to be “necessary and proper.” That’s passed on to states under the Fourteenth Amendment. There is no necessity for an abortion provider to have addition privileges at a hospital. That should be enough to invalidate any abortion law with “admitting” requirements.

    There is also no power given to government to regulate the reproductive process; therefore it is an “immunity” protected from government intrusion. The 14th clearly states that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” An abortion is clearly an “immunity” that should never be touched by regulation intending to outlaw or make abortion difficult to get.

    Why is it so difficult for conservatives to find these constitutional provisions?

     •  Reply
  20. Smokey
    Zuhlamon Premium Member about 1 year ago

    It’ll be SO much fun to watch wing-nut heads explode when Obama is sworn in…

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Michael Ramirez