Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "Neil Gorsuch Puts Lives Of Supreme Court In Danger" video.

Where's the DECENCY? The "Federalist Society" Supreme Court is derangedly rogue.
8
Two wrongs make a right-winger.
2
@rhondasisson1681 It can't be proven that there's a "God". As to the Rittenhouse trial: the judge restricted the prosecution to referring to the Rittenhouse VICTIMS as "rioters, looters, and arsonists -- EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE ANY OF THOSE THINGS. Wake up, law illiterate: the Constitution is by its own terms the SUPREME law of the land. There is no law higher or equal to it. The First Amendment to the Constitution SEPARATES "religion" and gov't. So keep your personal "religious" opinion OUT of the public square: do as Christ counseled: pray in PRIVATE rather than trying to impress others with your ego-trip pride that you're "religious".
2
@rhondasisson1681 Stop surrendering your individual responsibility to a "God" that is always a no-show. And all the "thoughts and prayers" have yet to save a single life.
2
@sarahtelles1931 Roberts and the other "conservative" extremists in the Court are all from the "Federalist Society". They have bigger things in mind than only "Roe v. Wade". The ultimate goal of the "Federalist Society" is the repeal of the "New Deal" -- the center of which is Social Security.
1
IDIOT: the 6 extremists ruled that the OSHA rule doesn't apply as concerns the mandate on business -- to which OSHA exclusively applies -- because people outside the work place are catching COVID. Cheap dodge of the issue: OSHO applies exclusively to business; outside that was outside the mandate. Learn how to be intellectually honest, which begins with ethics and GENUINE morality. "Justice and the Rule of Law are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams. Stop selling out your own birthrightt, and the rule of law, for the sake of unAmerican bigotry.
1
@ericpowell7547 You wouldn't know what the actual numbers because everything about the COVID pandemic is to you "fake news".
1
@gattaca5911 I've been refuting Scalia's "Heller' decision for more than 30 years. And been pointing to the violation of the Constitution by means of which the Supreme Court -- initiated by Scalia -- appointed G. DUI Bushit president.
1
@gattaca5911 Exactly right. Others call it, "results-oriented": Scalia had a result he wanted to reach, so ignored everything that refuted that result, especially the legislative history -- the debates of the Congress that WROTE the Second Amendment -- which he went on at length explaining how that history was irrelevant. And he was excoriated by Constitutional scholars across the board. In a later gun case, he argued, in his dissent thereto, that the very same legislative history was ESSENTIAL to the question being addressed.
1
Leave "God" out of it.
1
@julieb2398 Would you be of that view if Trump had appointed right-wing Muslims to the Court?
1
He's the one who should be "meeting" with the other justices from a separate location.
1