marvel

Democrats have Hillary....who has an almost unprecedented unfavorability rating.....for being considered untrustworthy and a liar. Perception as a liar for anyone in either party doesn't compare.

I don't think thousands. But that's not what new outlets like NY Times were up in arms about. They said no report existed about anyone cheering the WTC coming down. Then cited police and the mayor. Reports now show that simply isn't the case.

I was referring to Trump's comments. The media quadrupled down crying, "THAT NEVER HAPPENED!" They were wrong. And it's elevated Trump.

Many non-thinking people believe it didn't happen at all.

Ehhh. He may be playing on fear and stereotypes, but he wasn't lying. Article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/09/18/northern-new-jersey-draws-probers-eyes/40f82ea4-e015-4d6e-a87e-93aa433fafdc/?postshare=7281448290025183&tid=ss_fb

Seriously though, I'm in favor of ISIS being militarily destroyed, but it should be Arab boots -- Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq etc -- and EU countries that could be affected, like France, Germany, England. In no way am I in favor of sending more US troops for another 20 year war. First things first: quit trying to undermine Bashar al-Assad (and Putin for that matter) from destroying ISIS in Syria. A no-fly zone was a hot topic in the GOP debates. Some candidates have since made comments about shooting Russian planes (which would presumably be bombing ISIS and affiliates) if they don't abide by the proposed no-fly zone. Insane.

Kinda hard to go blast ISIS away when we're aiding them and their allies in Syria.

You are correct regarding public schools etc. I was referencing private segregation (businesses) which the Civil Rights Act abolished.

Everything mexitucky mentioned was passed through Congress as legislation or an amendment....not the SCOTUS making up a new found power. Which furthers my point: You can get to where you want policy wise, but you should probably follow the rule of law and our system of checks and balances --like it was intended.

You say they didn't create a new law. Gay marriage is considered federal law -- who wrote it? Even Justice Roberts stated "The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court's precedent..." He went on to say his decision was based on judicial restraint. Do you not share Roberts' legal concerns of how we got here? And for the record, I'm fine with the result, just don't agree with the means.

Judicial review.

I don't really care if we get rid of it. My problem is the judicial supremacy that has happened, first at the SCOTUS and their newly created law (which they have no authority over). Second, Bunning going by the SCOTUS case, ignored KY law regarding gay marriage. Also, what's the point of the KY Religious Freedom Act if it isn't even going to be taken into consideration in court....is it not applicable in this case?

Please tell me where I'm wrong.

I have no idea. All I know is there is no federal law on the books and Bunning's jail sentence on Davis most likely wouldn't have stuck with a higher court. The only reason the Bunning changed his mind and freed Davis is because he didn't want his ruling overturned.

They go to jail for violating the law.