Supreme Court

Defending Amy Coney Barrett, Ted Cruz Highlights the Threats That Democrats Pose to Civil Liberties

The Texas senator notes the opposing party's blind spots on freedom of speech and the right to arms.

|

Senate Democrats are portraying Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett as a menace to health care, abortion access, and democracy. During Barrett's confirmation hearing today, Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) countered that argument by detailing some of the ways in which justices nominated by a Democratic president could be expected to endanger civil liberties—in particular, freedom of speech and the right to armed self-defense.

When Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2016, Cruz noted, she promised to nominate justices who would vote to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 decision in which the Supreme Court concluded that restrictions on political speech by labor unions and corporations, including an ideologically diverse array of nonprofit advocacy groups, were inconsistent with the First Amendment. The issue in that case, Cruz reminded us, was whether "a small nonprofit organization based in D.C." could be fined for airing and promoting "a movie critical of a politician"—Clinton herself—close to an election, which qualified as a forbidden "electioneering communication."

During the first round of oral argument in Citizens United, Cruz noted, Justice Samuel Alito asked Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart whether the Constitution would allow Congress to ban material like Hillary: The Movie not just on radio or TV but in other media as well, such as DVDs, the internet, and books. Stewart said yes, noting that the ban on "express advocacy" by corporations—speech that does not merely praise or pan a candidate but explicitly supports his election or defeat—was not limited to radio and TV.

"That's pretty incredible," Alito replied. He then pressed Stewart to say whether a book containing express advocacy could be banned if it were published by a corporation (as books typically are). After much hemming and hawing, Stewart again said yes. He did note that the ban on express advocacy made an exception for media corporations such as book publishers, without committing himself on whether such an exception was constitutionally required.

That exchange was "truly chilling," Cruz said, since it reflected "a terrifying view of the First Amendment." The book-banning claim also startled Justice Antonin Scalia. "I'm a little disoriented here, Mr. Stewart," he said. "We are dealing with a constitutional provision, are we not, the one that I remember which says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press? That's what we're interpreting here?"

The discussion of book bans was a turning point in the case. By exposing the breadth of the censorship power claimed by the government, it spurred the justices to schedule a highly unusual second round of oral arguments to consider whether a 1990 precedent upholding a state ban on express advocacy should be revisited. The ultimate result was a 5-4 decision that overturned the rule against express advocacy as well as the restrictions on electioneering communications.

Given the closeness of that vote, Clinton's promise to nominate justices hostile to Citizens United could have had serious consequences for freedom of speech, and not in a good way. Joe Biden, who supports a constitutional amendment that would not only "end Citizens United" but "prevent outside spending from distorting the election process," seems to take an even narrower view of what Americans should be allowed to say about politicians like him.

In addition to supporting restrictions on political speech, Cruz noted, Democrats have a blind spot when it comes to the Second Amendment. While Democrats talk about "reasonable gun control," he said, that "is not what was at stake" in District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 decision in which the Supreme Court, also by a 5-4 vote, overturned a D.C. law that banned handguns outright and effectively made it illegal to use even long guns in defense of one's home and family. "The position of the four dissenters"—all but one nominated by Democrats—"was that the Second Amendment does not provide for any individual right to keep and bear arms whatsoever," Cruz pointed out, meaning it imposes no restrictions at all on gun laws.

The Democratic platform, which this year talks a lot about gun control but does not even pay lip service to the Second Amendment, likewise seems to view it as a nullity. The implication of that view, Cruz observed, is that "the federal government, the state government, [or] the city could ban guns entirely, could make it a criminal offense for any one of us to own a firearm, and no individual would have any judicially cognizable right to challenge that. That is a radical reading of the Constitution. That is effectively erasing the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights."

The point is not that Republicans are generally sounder on civil liberties than Democrats. Even when it comes to freedom of speech, Cruz himself is an unreliable ally who recently suggested that a movie he did not like should be banned.

Nor is the point that Republican Supreme Court nominees will always be safer bets for people who want the entire Bill of Rights to be respected. A Republican nominee might be a staunch defender of the Second Amendment (as Barrett clearly is) but less reliable when it comes to, say, due process or the Fourth Amendment (although Barrett looks pretty good on both counts).

The point is that, contrary to what Democrats want us to believe, threats to civil liberties do not emanate exclusively from either major party, and neither does concern about them.

[This post has been corrected to note that one of the Heller dissenters was appointed by a Republican.]

Advertisement

NEXT: Due Process for Butterflies in the D.C. Circuit

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Endorsed by Ted Cruz… That’s all you need to know.

    1. I actually need to know more. So continue.

      1. No, he’s better than you, he knows what you need to know, and it’s not much.

        1. Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page…..Click here

        2. ●▬▬▬▬PART TIME JOBS FOR US RESIDENTS▬▬▬▬▬●
          Makes $140 to $180 per day online work and i received $19884 in one month online acting from home. I am a daily student and work simply one to a pair of hours in my spare time. Everybody will do that job and online makes extra cash by simply You can check more.

          open this web……↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓ ­­⇛­⇛­⇛­⇛­⇛­►Click here

      2. Ummm okay were you born yesterday, friend? You’ve never heard of Ted Cruz? Do everyone here a favor and go check out his wiki page, then get back to us. Then we can have an intelligent conversation. I will give you one hint to get you started; he’s not a good man.

        1. Name any politician who is a “good man”, tell us by what criteria, and then we will show you how gullible or duplicitous you are.

          1. Oh my, this is deliciously funny, me and my hubby are laughing so hard right now. Are all the commenters here really this uneducated? Or just Republican? But I repeat myself. (laughing)
            How about we start with an obvious one, oh I don’t know, have you ever heard of someone by the name of Barrack Obama? I know you only asked for ‘good’ men, but I thought a ‘great’ one would do.

            And just to seal the deal, how about, oh gee, let’s see, Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Kamala Harris? Check mate?

            1. OBL is a bit more nuanced than this.

            2. B-

              It was a good sell, but not even her fellow Democrats think Harris is a good person.

            3. Barack Obama is a good man? (hearty, roaring belly laughter). Go on, tell us another one! You mean the Nobel Peace prize winner who droned brown people like it was going out of style, while scolding us for our racism?

        2. So what part of his history makes no other possible fact not needed to be known.

          Hint: try an actual argument.

          1. I don’t argue with Republicans.

            1. Well, then, fuck you, too.

              (Do you and you hubby both have boners, now?)

            2. “An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.”
              Based on the evidence, you don’t ‘argue’ with anyone.

    2. Username… doesn’t check out.

    3. “Speaking at a 2013 law forum, Barrett said that the “fundamental element” of Roe—that a woman can choose to have an abortion—will likely stay intact, and that the question now is whether or not those procedures “will be publicly or privately funded.””Click here

    4. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make Abe me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…CMs after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…>>Visit Here

    5. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this Azx month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions……….Click here

  2. Both sides….

  3. “The point is not that Republicans are generally sounder on civil liberties than Democrats.”

    That should absolutely be the point.

    1. “The point is not that Republicans are generally sounder on civil liberties than Democrats. Even when it comes to freedom of speech, Cruz himself is an unreliable ally who recently suggested that a movie he did not like should be banned.”

      It was “Cuties”. Reason’s favorite preteen sexploitation flick.

      “But you don’t understand. They’re actually condemning the sexualization of children by showing it. Just like “Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS” was condemning lesbian rape in Nazi prison camps”.

  4. Ever since Cruz got maimed by Trump and grew a beard he’s gotten a lot more lulzy.
    Jim Carrey just painted a picture of Cruz in hell and posted it to Twitter, so Cruz asked for a copy to hang in his office.

    https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1315760326915379202

    1. I think he’s learning how to play the social media game to prep for his next run at the presidency.

  5. >>The point is not that Republicans are generally sounder on civil liberties than Democrats.

    um, whoosh?

    1. He’s right.

      Republicans are not “generally sounder on civil liberties than Democrats.”

      They may well be better on those you care about more, but on the whole they’re not better, or worse, and the overarching point is that the BoR isn’t a buffet. You can’t pick and choose which you like and ignore the rest, and both sides actively ignore the parts they don’t like.

      Or need I remind you of Clarence Thomas in Safford Unified School District v. Redding?

      1. the BoR isn’t a buffet.

        AMEN! I am sick of hearing about how either Team Red or Team Blue are “better on civil liberties” than the other. They both suck because they both selectively read the document. Neither team actually likes *the whole thing*. And I understand, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good and all that, but look, if there’s one thing libertarians ought to hold their ground on, it’s the concept of, well, *liberty*.

        1. t. chemjeff “bothsides” individualist (but only when the Dems are obviously guilty).

          1. Jeff doesn’t like it for fucks sake. He was all about mandating masks if people didn’t volunteer to.

            1. Shut the fuck up Jesse. I never supported mandating masks, you right-wing asshole troll.

        2. And in order to pretend both parties are equally risky we only have to pretend one Senator’s comments covering risque content is equal to 4 Supreme Court Justice votes to allow complete censorship of political content.

          1. How about (a) they’re not equal, but also, (b) they’re both bad enough?

            Why do they have to be EQUALLY bad before it merits condemning BOTH of them?

            If one team wants to get rid of half the Bill of Rights, but the other team wants to get rid of only 1/3 of the Bill of Rights, are we supposed to cheer for the second team? “YAY they only want to eviscerate some of our rights! Go Team! Stop criticizing our team, they are BETTER than the other team because they hate liberty only slightly less!” Is that what you want?

      2. How about Long Dong Silver in PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY on Jun 29, 1992? This went diametrically against the 1972 LP plank that was rewritten as Roe v Wade, with only Nixon’s puppet dissenting.

        1. Yeah, Roe v. Wade isn’t the moral victory you think it is.

  6. Reading this post, I at first thought, “Reason is praising Red Cruz? What happened, did the angel break one of the seals?”

    But then the article winds up by a bit of both-sidesism because Ted Cruz would ban *Mignonnes/Cuties* – so I guess it’s all OK.

    1. The point is that ONLY “both” sides of “the” aisle have any right to opine. Libertarians disagree with both Hitler and Stalin and so are by definition malcontents who could safely be ignored were it not for their steeply increasing spoiler vote clout. Approval voting, which immediately eliminates rapidly growing confederacies of “rights” nuts is the obvious way to restore the kleptocracy status quo and silence all awkward-yet-unignorable dissent on the part of some voters.

  7. Good piece of reasoning and writing.

    1. Where? Please post a link!

        1. No, the piece WillDD was talking about.

          1. Whoooosh!

  8. Operating a business and driving to work are also civil liberties that Democrats are either actively curtailing or threatening to curtail. Not to mention attending sporting events.

    1. Don’t forget about owning property. They don’t seem very big on that one anymore either.

      1. They don’t mind if you own property and are a member in good standing of the Politurbo DNC.

        1. “Politurbo, DNC.”

          …and the difference is?

          1. The Politburo had Khrushchev, Tony tells me he was funny.

            1. He must only be familiar with Steve Buscemi’s portrayal of him. That actually was really funny.

      2. And Reason seems rather inconsistent themselves on the ability to defend your property.

  9. “end Citizens United”

    End the first amendment?

    1. Nobody needs ten amendments.

      1. Nobody needs an assault constitution with more than ten amendments. Which ones shall we get rid of…..

        1. Depends on who is trying utilize them, so it will change day to day, moment to moment.

        2. Sixteen and seventeen!

          1. Considering their relevance today is less than that of the 2A wrt arms, I’d throw in the 14th and 15th.

            I don’t see any right-wing Beto’s on the national or even local stage saying “Hell yes we’re gonna take away your due process, your equal representation!” And, even if there were, it’s not like there’s some sort of back door Federal Registry by which the Government would be able to identify all the “slaves” and go around door-to-door returning them back to a 3/5ths vote.

      2. That high-capacity Bill of Rights has turned the Constitution into an assault weapon.

        I bet if you look hard enuff you could find a black pistol grip and a shoulder thing that goes up.

      3. The USA apparently has the shortest Constitution in the Western Hemisphere. There is a clear trendline showing that the wordier the Constitution the poorer each person governed by that stack of pages. See https://tinyurl.com/y6okk9l4
        People trapped in other countries yearn to have a short Constitution like ours.

  10. I think if they switched out the top of Cruz’s head for Anthony Ainley’s, he’d be a good second-rank Master.

    1. Damn! I’ve always thought that beard looked familiar.

  11. Where’s the Trump angle in this article? ENB is going to kick Sullum’s ass.

  12. >>A Republican nominee

    also, T is barely (R)

    1. Which T is tickling your TDS?

  13. By exposing the breadth of the censorship power claimed by the government,

    Supported not just by the government but also by all 4 left wing justices – who are considered moderates by the even more extreme left wing legal body.

    Dems want to completely erase the first and second amendments, their value is zero. But Reps aren’t perfect, their value is less than 100.

    Naturally Reasoners conclude both sides are guilty. There really is something wrong these people.

  14. Thank Science half the Reason staff is voting for Kamala Harris!

    1. Hey come on now, it’s only 6 of them.

    2. And many of the rest would if the race was close in their state.

  15. Lame “both sides” crap again. Dems want to erase more than 10% of the bill of rights versus GOP justices might not be perfect by some calculations.

    1. The Democrats want to erase >10% of the plain-letter text of the BOR. The GOP wants to erase the portion that’s only visible if you hold the BOR up to the light, have a vagina, and view it from the left.

  16. Even when it comes to freedom of speech, Cruz himself is an unreliable ally who recently suggested that a movie he did not like should be banned.

    So he proposed a bill banning Cuties? A bill banning minors from appearing in explicit sexual content on Netflix? A bill banning the depiction of minors in sexual situations on streaming services? A bill to purge minors in potentially suggestive situations from all screens and media by any means necessary No?

    So, so when you say he suggested that a movie ‘should be banned’ you mean to say that he, and Gabbard, called for a criminal investigation into what might actually constitute a crime and that the matter be argued in a court of law. It would be curious to know that if he’d asked for an investigation into the death of George Floyd, would you say that he was trying to ban murder as well?

    Too bad too, the article started off halfway decent.

    1. You’ve got a flexible definition of “explicit”.

      1. The law cited was sexual behavior even when clothed for minors.

      2. To be more explicit in my response, would you also ban Shirley Temple movies, or beuaty pageants for minors, or minors in swimsuits? Parents taking pictures of their kids in bathtubs?

        1. To be more explicit in my response

          Oh, I see, you think ‘explicit’ means ‘stupid’. I’ll try to use smaller words: Cruz no ask for ban. Cruz ask court to judge. Court judging no ban Shirley Temple movies, beauty pageants, swimsuits, parents taking pictures.

          You think Shirley Temple movies, beauty pageants, minor swimsuits, parents taking pictures explicitly sexual say lots about you.

          1. Cruz no ask for ban, but “chilling effect” is a real thing.

            1. OK, so if you’re going to make a movie about taking advantage of children, avoid crotch shots. Brrr…

              Wouldn’t be the first time SCOTUS decided what chilling affect is acceptable in the just eradication of immoral/illegal behavior, won’t be the last.

              Or are you saying that the sexual exploitation of minors shouldn’t be an enforceable crime?

              1. Or are you saying that the sexual exploitation of minors shouldn’t be an enforceable crime?

                If we try and convict the producers of Cuties, somebody somewhere might get the idea that it’s not a good idea to film minors’ crotches for entertainment and profit!

                1. You never answered my question. Just tried to change the goal posts. You can tell a lot about someone from how they dodge questions.

                  1. You compared cuties to Shirley temple dummy.

        2. “But you don’t understand. They’re actually condemning the sexualization of children by showing it.
          Just like “I Am Curious (Yellow)” was about the existence of class structure in Swedish society”.

          Best Regards, Pedojeff

        3. Which of their movies had sexualized content? May want to pass this one off to SPB.

          Cuties had girls touching themselves, grinding , and a seen of them taking a crotch selfie. Now I’m not a Shirley temple Uber fan or anything. But I don’t remember that in the good ship lollipop routine.

    2. I agree that Sullum’s example of how bad Cruz is on civil liberties could have been chosen better. He might have chosen Cruz’s anti-gay fetish, or Cruz’s “opposition” to NSA spying with his support of the “Freedom Act”.

      1. I agree that Sullum’s example of how bad Cruz is on civil liberties could have been chosen better. He might have chosen Cruz’s anti-gay fetish

        chemjeff: “Me and Sullum just got married, any advice?”
        Rodney: “You both coulda done better.”

      2. Cruz’s anti-gay fetish
        Oh? How so?

      3. Support of spying.. like support of the CIA and using the dossier against Trump? Bad choice to pick for you sweetie.

        1. Why don’t you stick to the topic for once instead of engaging in your usual galloping Gish of irrelevancies, you worthless troll.

  17. How about all the threats that Republicans pose to civil liberties!

    1. Well, how about:

      1. They’re back on the “ban flag burning” wagon, at least Trump is, after having been a dead issue for about 25 years.
      2. For a lot of them, “separation of church and state” is a Satanic plot to corrupt the youth of America. So, that’s bad.
      3. They’re generally bad on the Fourth Amendment. Goes hand in hand with their pro-cop schtick. Rand Paul is a rare exception to this.
      4. They’re generally bad on voting rights. They tend to want to shrink the voter pool, not expand it.
      5. A lot of them seem to be coming around to the “cancel culture” idea of their own.
      6. And of course, abortion.

      That’s just off the top of my head, I’m sure there’s more.

      1. For a lot of them, “separation of church and state” is a Satanic plot to corrupt the youth of America. So, that’s bad.

        How so?
        And I don’t want a bullshit example that deliberately ignores the whole ” or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” part.

      2. When making such accusations, it is usually helpful to provide some support, lest Democrats be shallowly accused of supporting abortion as part of their ritualistic devotion to Moloch.

        1. No no I get it.
          Everyone to the left of Ted Cruz is routinely accused of being a Marxist on a daily basis.
          But when anyone makes a more serious claim about well-known facts, then, pages of documentation and citations are required lest the right-wing snowflakes around here get triggered and outraged by how unfair it all is.

          1. But when anyone makes a more serious claim about well-known facts concerning Team Red

            fixed it

      3. 1. It is better than the book burning democrats tried with Citizens United.
        2. Separation does not require exclusion of. You confuse this with never having to see or listen to a religious tenet when oddly freedom of religion is in 1a.
        3. Says the guy who supports all of the investigations into trump Russia and has asked for grand jury material to be exposed. Again, bad topic for you to bring up.
        4. Lol. Just admit youre a leftist already.
        5. Play by the rules as presented. They aren’t the ones openly advocating for it as a basis of being. Ignorant fuck.
        6. Yes, biologicall independent human beings have no rights until they magically pass through a pushy portal.

        Now do your diatribe against the left. Bonus points if you can make it just as dishonest. Will you even mention lockdowns?

        1. And here is Jesse the Team Red Shill who won’t condemn the excesses of Team Red and will find ways to justify and excuse them.

          Just admit already that the only reason you are here is to push right-wing talking points and troll. It is boring and lame.

        2. And by the way, if you want a “diatribe against the left”, read 99% of the comments here. Read your own damn comments. Why am I expected to parrot your right-wing talking points when you do a good enough job of regurgitating them yourself on a daily basis?

          Maybe someone around here, when they aren’t busy finding Antifa bogeymen in their closets hopping on a plane and going to the suburbs to burn down forests, or accusing everyone to the left of Ted Cruz of being a “Marxist”, should point out that, hey, Team Red has some pretty bad faults of their own.

        3. And the saddest part is that your defenses of Team Red hostility to liberty consist of strawmen and whataboutism. You can’t even defend them in good faith. “If Team Blue hates liberty, therefore Team Red is justified in hating liberty too” isn’t exactly a winning pro-liberty argument, ya know.

      4. Oh look, here’s Lying Jeffy making bullshit claims then not backing them up again.

        1. Go look them up yourself, Troll Mac.
          I don’t see anyone around here offering laborious citations for claims that Biden or Harris are “Marxists” or want to “ban coal” or some other such nonsense.

      5. Shrinking the voter pool? Considering the American voter today, I’m in favor. If you have to be hectored into registering to vote, which allows you to commit “legal plunder” against your neighbor, not guilty of any crime, why should we be trying to encourage you, for God’s sake?

  18. Thanks for reminding me that four Supremes actually voted to ban political advocacy books during election season. And certain senators would have you believe that the current nominee is going to destroy democracy and shred the Constitution.

    1. We have also memory holed kelo and its redefinition of public use by the liberals.

      1. I remember minutes after kelo dropped NPR was reporting it as a “majority Republican Justice” opinion.

    2. Teddy Mutterehrenkreuz, like Teddy Roosevelt, is perfectly OK with men with guns coercing physicians and women, 14A and 9A be damned. Wilson’s Suprema Corte ruled that frogmarching kids into the gas-filled trenches at Verdun was nothing at all like involuntary servitude–not when belligerents owe money to U.S. banks. Ted Mutterehrenkreuz is a pisspoor choice for the libertarian debating team. Recall that Roe v Wade copied and restated the 1972 Libertarian Party plank on reproduction, and until an infallible pederast gets a Girl-Bullying Amendment passed, grrrlz gots rights even in Alabammy and Texas.

      1. Tasty, tasty meth.

  19. Back when the other communist dictatorship was crumbling, looters gnashed and wailed that American weapons–especially anti-aggressive Strategic Defense weapons–needed to be banned by the very foreigners they defend us against. The Second Amendment defense in the literature of physicists is that out Bill of Rights does not exist at the pleasure of foreign jurisdictions, many of them overtly hostile. Remember this next time you see a “new” attack on 2A coming from totalitarian planned economy ideologues.

  20. Defending Amy Coney Barrett, Ted Cruz Highlights the Threats That Democrats Pose to Civil Liberties
    And yet the libertarians at Reason prefer that Joe Biden start nominating judges on Jan. 21. The guy that nominated Amy Barret also nominated Neil Gorsuch in case you need to be reminded. And there are likely to be Scotus openings in the next for years so I guess libertarians would prefer another lunatic (read some of her shit if you don’t think my characterization is accurate) like the notorious RBG. I guess libertarians are still bitter because Orange Man abandoned the Kurds or something.

    1. I guess libertarians are still bitter because Orange Man abandoned the Kurds or something.

      Trump suggested to the Ukranian President that they find a way to ban Joe Biden from becoming President.

      1. Yes because Joe Biden is a far left wing wet dream, and the exact opposite of what libertarians want. Trump might be the dollar menu at a fast food restaurant, but he’s not the shit sandwich libertarians will get under Harris-Biden.

  21. A Republican nominee might be a staunch defender of the Second Amendment (as Barrett clearly is) but less reliable when it comes to, say, due process or the Fourth Amendment (although Barrett looks pretty good on both counts).

    The president accepts your apology.

  22. Cruz makes some great points. Wish he’d reconsider his position on Section 230 and see how it goes completely against what he’s talking about here.

    1. Hes basically said that corporations who don’t abide by free speech principles should receive extra liability protections enacted to protect free speech. Not sure how that is in contradiction here.

  23. Really this is what you have? The Rs want to kill gay rights, abortion rights, anti-discrimination laws, all the rights in the 4th though 8th Amendments, the 14th Amendment, want to legalize voter suppression, and elevate religious “freedom” over the rights of everyone else. And you bring up CU, which makes it very hard for even popular legislation to be enacted if the lobbyists oppose it, and Heller, which makes up an individual right to have a gun that has no historical or textual support.

    1. Man, that pile of straw men must have given you a hernia, lefty shit.

      1. Weird how him and Jeff had the basic same talking points.

        1. Mine are better.

      1. But I am also correct.

        1. You’re full of shit.

          1. Which one did I get wrong?

            1. Well, in this comment, your use of the word “one”, since it implies only a single error.

            2. The Rs want to kill gay rights
              probably not… unless you mean granting additional, special rights that nobody else gets.

              abortion rights
              Hopefully, fuck you kiddie butchers

              anti-discrimination laws
              Why? The Republicans wrote the ’64 Civil Rights Act. The Democrats on the other hand, filibustered it.

              elevate religious “freedom” over the rights of everyone else
              You mean observe the First Amendment?
              Oh wow, lol.

            3. Heller … makes up an individual right to have a gun that has no historical or textual support
              Laughable. Heller recognized the undeniable truth that the 2nd Amendment has always and only applied to individuals. “The right of the people” is right there in the operative clause.

  24. We keep hearing assurance that “gay marriage” is popular, so what do they have to fear from a Supreme Court decision leaving the matter to the states?

    1. Because you should be able to marry who the fuck you want to marry. Why should only men and women get to do that? How long do you think a state law forbidding that men and women can’t would last in court? It’s exactly the same with two gay men or women who want to do the same. They’re both consenting adults. It’s fucking sad to see supposed libertarians think it’s cool for the state to limit if you can marry another person or not. Bunch of boot lickers the whole fucking lot of you.

      1. It’s worse to see an old idiot gibber that peoples living arrangements must be recognized and certified by any government, let alone the federal government.

        It’s fucking sad to see supposed libertarians think it’s cool for the state to mandate any marriage.

      2. Fucking stupid old boot-licking slaver.

  25. Ted Cruz is a fuck boy who lets Trump attempt to intimidate him and insult his wife. He is Trump’s toy. His soft ball questions and comments were ridiculous.

    1. Good, good, let the butthurt flow through you.
      I love how he enrages you.

  26. Make 6,000 dollar to 8,000 dollar A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss AndChoose Your Own Work Hours.Thanks A lot Here>>> Read More.

  27. Joe Biden, who supports a constitutional amendment that would not only “end Citizens United” but “prevent outside spending from distorting the election process,” seems to take an even narrower view of what Americans should be allowed to say about politicians like him.

    And

    The Democratic platform, which this year talks a lot about gun control but does not even pay lip service to the Second Amendment

    And yet several Reason writers are going to vote for him not only over Trump, but over the Libertarian candidate!!??

    The point is not that Republicans are generally sounder on civil liberties than Democrats. Even when it comes to freedom of speech, Cruz himself is an unreliable ally who recently suggested that a movie he did not like should be banned.

    Of course they’re sounder. Not perfect. Arguably not great. But clearly better. The Biden-voting writers here are expecting the Republican-nominated USSC justices to protect them from anti-civil liberties efforts coming from a Biden administration, no? It’s safe to vote Biden with the USSC as a backstop? That’s a plan, I guess, unless of course Biden (or Harris after he has to step down) goes ahead and packs the court — ooops. As for Cuties — it probably does meet the legal definition of kiddie porn. Which just goes to show how insane our kiddie porn laws are. But remind me which Dems are arguing for scaling back those laws?

  28. Self defense? You mean the more liberal court in 2008 that ruled in DC v Heller?

    As usual, it’s bullshit talking points from Republicans that aren’t grounded in reality.

  29. This is one of the basic point to discuss against the threats.

Please to post comments