Wyoming for the win! We need more of this

HHusky said:
So we like unenumerated rights today.
Click to expand...
Please to be citing the Constitutional provision that specifically empowers the federal government to allow dudes to whip their dick out in the women’s restroom.

Start with the 10th amendment and work from there

Your law degree is looking about as phony as your MBA
 
Last edited:
PurpleThrobber said:
HHusky said:
So we like unenumerated rights today.
Click to expand...
Please to be citing the Constitutional provision that specifically empowers the federal government to allow dudes to whip their dick out in the women’s restroom.

Start with the 10th amendment and work from there

Your law degree is looking about as phony as your MBA
Click to expand...
You assume I was disagreeing with the judge as opposed to simply pointing out the hypocrisy of you girls.
 
The whoooosh is to be expected. I didn’t really think you two gals would understand it, but I know at least one your ilk who does.
I appreciate PT’s willingness to really commit to the stupid though. Race, your timidity here is disappointing.
 
Last edited:
HHusky said:
The whoooosh is to be expected. I didn’t really think you two gals would understand it, but I know at least one your ilk who does.
I appreciate PT’s willingness to really commit to the stupid though. Race, your timidity here is disappointing.
Click to expand...
Christ. Walk the safety up. Same old play.

Now do the “it was just a joke” angle.
 
HHusky said:
The whoooosh is to be expected. I didn’t really think you two gals would understand it, but I know at least one your ilk who does.
I appreciate PT’s willingness to really commit to the stupid though. Race, your timidity here is disappointing.
Click to expand...
You sound upset
 
The dazzler approves of showering with your teen daughter so why would he be upset if his daughter had to shower with a dude who just took her starting basketball spot from her?
 
PurpleThrobber said:
HHusky said:
The whoooosh is to be expected. I didn’t really think you two gals would understand it, but I know at least one your ilk who does.
I appreciate PT’s willingness to really commit to the stupid though. Race, your timidity here is disappointing.
Click to expand...
Christ. Walk the safety up. Same old play.

Now do the “it was just a joke” angle.
Click to expand...
That you stepped right into the snare is a you issue. Race was more cautious.
 
HHusky said:
The whoooosh is to be expected. I didn’t really think you two gals would understand it, but I know at least one your ilk who does.
I appreciate PT’s willingness to really commit to the stupid though. Race, your timidity here is disappointing.
Click to expand...
So no answer then
 
WestlinnDuck said:
The dazzler approves of showering with your teen daughter so why would he be upset if his daughter had to shower with a dude who just took her starting basketball spot from her?
Click to expand...
Gasbag ain’t about to acknowledge that he knows what the subject is.
Where’s that Bunker Hill spirit, old guy?
 
In Griswold, the Supreme Court rejected a Connecticut state law that banned the use of birth control by married couples. (Yes, really.) The court reasoned that “specific guarantees in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights have penumbras … where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion.” There is the First Amendment’s rights to express your religious and political beliefs and to freely associate with others; the Third Amendment’s right to privacy in one’s own home by refusing to house soldiers during peacetime; the Fourth Amendment’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government; the Fifth Amendment’s right against self-incrimination; and the Ninth Amendment’s preservation of other individual rights, regardless of whether they are mentioned in the Constitution.
Taken together, the Supreme Court concluded, the protections in the Bill of Rights meant the Founders believed there is a “right to be let alone.”
Conservative legal heroes such as Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas hate this. Each has explicitly argued that the right to privacy is not a constitutional right because the Founders did not did not explicitly say there’s one. In 2007, Justice Thomas wrote that there is “no general right to privacy” or relevant liberty in the U.S. Constitution. Justice Scalia, in the same Lawrence v. Texas case, spoke disparagingly of the “so-called ‘right to privacy.’”

I have been reading many of you gals parroting Scalia and Thomas on this issue for more than 20 years. Today you celebrate a judge’s ruling based upon the same rights you would claim don’t exist in other contexts. Hypocrisy? Absolutely. Yours.
 
Last edited:
That doesn't allow dudes in the girls bathroom
Pathetic. You should stick to being vague
 
RaceBannon said:
That doesn't allow dudes in the girls bathroom
Pathetic. You should stick to being vague
Click to expand...
“I want you to spell it out unless that hurts my feelings!”, shrieked Race.

(I don’t have a problem with the judge’s reasoning, Phyllis.)
 
Of course you have a problem with it. That's what your deflection is all about. You vote for it
Title 9 isn't for trannies idiot. It's for women.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top