Columns

Senate Dems and Their Ridiculous Demand

Share
Tweet
email Email
Print
Advertisement
REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

The retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, led Senate Democrats to make a ridiculous demand: insisting that the majority Republicans delay approval of any Trump nominee in case Democrats win control of the Senate, and can then block the president’s choice.

The liberals argue that Republicans delayed consideration of Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, until after the 2016 election. But that time the opposition party—the GOP—already controlled the Senate and hoped to win the White House in a mere five months. This time, Democrats are a Senate MINORITY, with no chance of a Democratic president taking office till 2021!

Their indignant effort to block a Republican president and Republican Senate, from replacing a retiring Republican justice in an orderly, timely way, demonstrates the hyper-partisan gamesmanship that voters rejected in 2016, and should reject again in November.

Share
Tweet
email Email
Print

Comments (87)

Leave a comment
  1. Ty  •  Jun 28, 2018 at 11:17 pm

    The Chutzpah of Michael grows by the day. Republicans stole a supreme court seat, don't you DARE expect any cooperation or normalization of procedures for any future picks.

    Take comfort that you do not need democrats to confirm whatever religious/corporate rubber stamp judge republicans will confirm next. But in the unlikely even that democrats take the Senate and another seat opens, don't you DARE expect any nominees to get through. We are DONE playing patty cake with you thugs.

    You know you don't have the numbers via popular support, so you are busy doing everything you can to build walls and damns to prevent the shifts in power from coming to fruition for decades to come. We notice Michael, and we are going to respond in kind.

    • Cleisthenes  •  Jun 29, 2018 at 3:42 pm

      Really?

    • kmeechan  •  Jun 29, 2018 at 3:59 pm

      Ty, I have tried to be civil with you as you occasionally have valid points but on this point you are a complete ignorant ass. The situation is exactly the OPPOSITE of what you describe: the RIGHT is actually done with the authoritarian thuggery of the LEFT and you are going to continue to be electoral losers and get rolled over as long as you continue your brute force intolerant tactics. Rizzo is exactly right, the left has used the courts for decade to legislate from the bench when they cannot get their will passed by the voters and congress. All conservatives want is judges that interpret the constitution, not re-write and make up laws. Clearly Trump had the right and legal precedent to enact a travel ban from certain higher risk countries (just like Obama did, which the media of course ignores), clearly circuit court judges blocked the ban for ideological reasons and the supreme court actually followed the law and overturned them as they should have. Believe it or not this has nothing to do with Islam per se or "brown skin", it has to do with national security and existing law. But you and the Left can continue your rants about White Nationalism and abolishing ICE and continue to not understand the average American voter and continue to lose elections. There will be no Blue Wave this fall, if I am wrong you can call me out. And no, Row V. Wade will not be overturned, relax, the Democrat's Holy Sacrament of Abortion is established law and will likely remain so. And actually yes , we do have popular support for our agenda, sorry.

      Lastly, conservatives are opposed to ANY judicial activism, it is much more prominent with "liberal" judges than "conservative" judges but John Roberts was clearly activist when he ruled twice to uphold Obamacare so as not to upset the existing apple cart. When we ask for "conservative" judiciary we want folks who interpret the constitution as written and understood at the time, this is not an ideological litmus test. Obamacare clearly stated that subsidies were limited to states that participated in the federal exchanges, this was written that way intentionally by Democrats to encourage exchange participation by the stated. Once Obama started ignoring his own law and providing subsidies to all enrollees there was suit to block this. And Clearly the Supreme Court with Roberts writing the opinion ignored the unambiguous law and allowed the subsidies to continue. This is judicial activism and this is what we oppose.

      BTW it was Democrats that eliminated the super majority requirement for lower court judges, thanks for the weapon.

      • Ty  •  Jun 29, 2018 at 11:12 pm

        The democrats removed the supermajority requirement for lower court judges because republicans were blocking everything just for the sake of. Not a single republican voted for obamacare, it was an active strategy to deny almost every liberal policy with whatever power you had.

        In North Carolina, the same thing happened.

        https://www.cbsnews.com/news/n-c-gop-strips-some-of-democratic-governors-power/

        Power grabs abound. Conservatives PRETEND they care about local governance, but cheer the supreme court vacating the capacity for states to set their own rules regarding unions and agency fees (which are separate from voluntary fees that go to political activism). They are happy using STATE power where the balance of power is in the hands of a bunch of jack knife rural republican THUGS to DICTATE from on high like absolute sovereigns what cities are allowed to do with confederate statues. Memphis wanted the statues of confederates removed, but the rural hicks that did not live in the city wanted them to stay. The city found a loophole to get them removed and were punished with some 200k fee by the state. If a bunch of rural conservative HICKS love the confederacy and those TRAITORS statues so much, why don't they line their own trashy communities with them? But no, conservatives love to BITCH about how everyone else oppresses them and dictates terms to them when what they REALLY crave is for the rest of the nation to bend to THEIR terms and will.

        If activist judgments lead to more conservative rulings, you'd be for that style, and when the reverse is true, you are more likely than not to be ok with the exceptions. Spare me this false sense of giving a damn about the original constitution.

        Trump OPENLY SAID he wanted a MUSLIM ban, the conservative justices pretended that as long as there was another POSSIBLE interpretation of why he wanted the ban, then that was all that mattered. Not a preponderance of the evidence, not based off what the man actually SAID repeatedly.

        What kind of a sh*t standard is that? If a judge is trying to adjudicate intent for a crime of murder of his wife by car running her over, where there is a tape of him mentioning that he is going to off her if she keeps antagonizing him, and he ignores that clear evidence because another possible reason for running her over was that it was an accident and he did not see her… that is just dred scott class logic by another name. It's a farce, a joke. It's power plays all the way down, what is the best legal logic people can muster to get what conservatives want, and be done with it.

        I don't deny liberals did this too, based on what I've read, roe v wade was probably badly decided. And even the gay marriage ruling, where I like the outcome, seemed a bit of a stretch. But you conservatives, pure as the driven snow, who piss distilled water would NEVER engineer court decisions to get what you want. Oh no. Not us.

        Ok. And corporations are people that ought to have identical rights to human beings. You keep believing your own fairy tails.

        Like I said, we are done playing nice. You better hope you never lose the presidency and senate again.

      • Rizzo  •  Jun 30, 2018 at 10:22 am

        "The democrats removed the supermajority requirement for lower court judges because…" THANK YOU!

        NOW…
        Step by step… lets deconstruct all of your LEFTIST LIES.

        Muslim Ban? Hmmm… Trump issued a proclamation restricting certain nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen and North Korea from obtaining visas to travel to the U.S. Certain Venezuelan government officials and their families were also barred. This ban represents only about 12 percent of ALL Muslims in the world. Does this sound like a Muslim ban to ANYONE?
        You lunatics prefer Trump obstruction over American safety.

        Now, your talk about removing statues…. I could find NO EXAMPLE where the FEDERAL government prevented ANYONE from removing statues in a lawful way. That doesn’t mean you won’t get individuals from opposing such action. But, what does the left do? They do, what they ALWAYS DO… the LEFT, BUS-IN their thugs to vandalize and destroy public property.
        That’s what the left does, that’s who they are.

        And NOBOY EVER said that corporations “ought to have identical rights” to humans. Do you read?
        Citizens United was a VICTORY for FREE-SPEECH… something the LEFT HATES.
        Banning independent political advocacy violates the First Amendment because it effectively limits speech. The Court rejected the idea that the government can decide who gets to speak and that the government can actually impose "federal felony punishment" on some for speaking at all, particularly those who speak through associations of members who share their beliefs, i.e. corporations. What are corporations, if not the people who work for it?

        So you see, Conservatives want to ban foreign enemies from entering our country and doing us harm, and the left wants to ban First Amendment RIGHTS from US citizens.
        Pretty sick!

        The bottom-line is: Conservatives honor The US Constitution, and want Judges, who will do the same.
        The left hates The Constitution, and see it as ONLY a barrier to reaching their SOCIALIST UTOPIA. As a result, we get 2 Obama justices: Kagan and Sotomayor.

      • Rizzo  •  Jun 30, 2018 at 12:42 pm

        “conservative rulings”, by its very definition, is the antithesis of “activist judgements”.
        Conservatives are trying to CONSERVE the fidelity of the Constitution. They are trying to CONSERVE ORIGINALISM.
        LEFTISTS are looking to avoid it, and CREATE NEW LAWS.
        This approach is an OBVIOUS VIOLATION of the separation of powers.
        Ty, perhaps you might be served well to learn about the reasons for divided government, and why what you advocate for is HISTORICALLY DISASTROUS!

    • Skip  •  Jun 30, 2018 at 3:10 pm

      Ty: Your comment can't be taken seriously. Please, if nothing else then for your own sense of pride, think carefully about what you want to say before you write it.

    • John D. Fiat  •  Jul 6, 2018 at 3:29 am

      Republicans "stole" a Supreme Court seat? That's less legitimate than saying Obama had Scalia killed to get his judge on the bench in the first place! After all, Scalia died in some pretty suspicious circumstances. (And no autopsy for a SC justice? What the hell was that?) Heck, Obama even joked about Scalia dying. The conspiracy theory is probably just that, but karma is a bitch, isn't it?

  2. Rizzo  •  Jun 29, 2018 at 6:53 am

    The BIG difference is: Democrats aka leftists, nominate ideological hacks, who’s only concern is to jam the left’s agenda through the courts, because when it comes to a vote, the left loses every time. Republicans ONLY requirement is fidelity to the Constitution.

    NOBODY voted for the right to kill babies.
    NOBODY voted for the right to redefine marriage.
    NOBODY voted for the right to have government force Obamacare down our throats…. etc.

    So the left tries to stack the courts with fellow leftists, so that they can rule against the will of the people. We don’t need 9, unelected people ordering us on how to live our lives…. particularly in areas where the Constitution is ABSOLUTELY SILENT.

    • NetworkDr  •  Jun 29, 2018 at 8:24 pm

      Rizzo – I agree with you across the board, all the time, but I need to add a point to your response…

      "NOBODY voted for the right to redefine marriage."

      Actually, California voted to NOT redefine marriage and the Left ran screaming to the liberal court to invalidate the will of the people.

      On a similar issue, I find it annoying to hear the Left scream that "Trump will nominate Conservative judges!" as if that is some sort of revelation. Every President nominates judges in the brand of their own ideology. Don't act surprised to get Conservative judges when a Conservative President is sitting in the oval office.

      • Ty  •  Jul 2, 2018 at 2:21 pm

        "Rizzo – I agree with you across the board, all the time…"

        We are so doomed.

        And network, if California voted for marriage today, EVERY anti gay marriage proposal would burn up in FLAMES.

        I kind of wish that supreme court decision was not made, because I wanted to see state by state go online and allow gay marriage, until nothing was left but a bunch of deep right wing social conservative hell holes where no one wants to live because of the trashy little attitudes of dictatorial social conservative busy bodies all up in other peoples lives. I wanted you all to see definitively, for the first time, legislatively, your pretense of having Americans on YOUR side wither and wane and DIE.

        The court decision denied me that. I liked the result of course, but I could have lived with the slower march to cutting out social conservative animus towards gays one state at a time.

  3. Armand  •  Jun 29, 2018 at 8:57 am

    “NOBODY voted for the right to have government force Obamacare down our throats…. etc.“
    John McCain did by changing his vote. The Conman Scam that is Obamacare has not been replaced by Republicans because both parties are controlled by the financial interests that wanted Obamacare in the first place.

    • Rizzo  •  Jun 29, 2018 at 10:31 am

      It wouldn’t matter, if The Supreme Court was filled with individuals who honored the fidelity of the Constitution.
      They would have sent it back to the states, then people, not politicians could vote it up or down,

  4. kmeechan  •  Jun 29, 2018 at 4:01 pm

    Ty, I have tried to be civil with you as you occasionally have valid points but on this point you are a complete ignorant ass. The situation is exactly the OPPOSITE of what you describe: the RIGHT is actually done with the authoritarian thuggery of the LEFT and you are going to continue to be electoral losers and get rolled over as long as you continue your brute force intolerant tactics. Rizzo is exactly right, the left has used the courts for decade to legislate from the bench when they cannot get their will passed by the voters and congress. All conservatives want is judges that interpret the constitution, not re-write and make up laws. Clearly Trump had the right and legal precedent to enact a travel ban from certain higher risk countries (just like Obama did, which the media of course ignores), clearly circuit court judges blocked the ban for ideological reasons and the supreme court actually followed the law and overturned them as they should have. Believe it or not this has nothing to do with Islam per se or "brown skin", it has to do with national security and existing law. But you and the Left can continue your rants about White Nationalism and abolishing ICE and continue to not understand the average American voter and continue to lose elections. There will be no Blue Wave this fall, if I am wrong you can call me out. And no, Row V. Wade will not be overturned, relax, the Democrat's Holy Sacrament of Abortion is established law and will likely remain so. And actually yes , we do have popular support for our agenda, sorry.

  5. Loren  •  Jun 29, 2018 at 11:46 pm

    Michael Medved does his best to rationalize and justify Mitch McConnell's actions in preventing even a hearing for Merrick Garland. Often Michael and other conservatives point to Joe Biden's rule, suggesting that because Joe Biden thought that a Republican Supreme Court appointment should wait for an election, that means that of course a Democratic appointment must wait. But who appointed Joe Biden eternal dictator of Senate policy. The Constitution requires the Senate to advise and consent a president's appointment. Barack Obama made an appointment. And the Republicans did not follow their constitutional requirements to hold hearings and a vote on that appointment. Antonin Scalia passed away Feb. 13, 2016. Neil Gorsuch wasn't confirmed until April 2017. That is 14 months with a vacant seat on the Supreme Court. And it was vacant only because Mitch McConnell sought political advantage in holding that seat vacant. Show me where in the American Constitution it says that Supreme Court appointments must be made with political considerations in mind.

    • Nani Tavares  •  Jun 30, 2018 at 5:06 pm

      Loren, here's the problem. A long time ago, Democrats used the courts to push their agenda that they could not get thru by the Legislative Branch. The courts were never supposed to make law as they are not elected by the people. So, after eons of this legislating from the bench, there comes the possibility of the Right doing the same. Notice I said "possibility". If the Left had never used the courts to circumvent the people; if the Supreme Court had remain an EQUAL of the 3 branches of power instead of the finale rule, Liberals would not be in a panic mode. Scream all you want about the fairness of picking a SCOTUS judge, but the fact is Liberals have only their selves to blame.

      • Ty  •  Jun 30, 2018 at 11:05 pm

        I think it's clear what we are seeing now is that conservatives are already quite content with activist judgments so long as they are done in their name. Conservatives, as always, like to think of themselves as special and noble creatures. They imagine that liberals using courts to get their policy preferences during a time when they could not get their way legislatively was something innate to the liberal psyche.

        They then claim that when they engage in some of the same, the same bad behavior they decried when the liberals were doing it, it must be laid at the feet of the liberals for opening pandoras box. Conservative agency? non existent. WE made them do x, y, z. If not for our actions, they would never have bothered.

        This is horsesh*t. The left relied on the courts because at one time that was their only lever that was feasible to achieve their policy ends. If that was the only lever for the right to get their policy preferences at the same time they would have engaged in the same kinds of activities. AS they are doing right now all over the nation, not just in the courts, but at the state level with things like state preemption laws.

        Liberal city wants to raise minimum wage? conservative state legislature and governors block them. What happened to self determination? If a liberal city wants to make bad policy, let them live with the consequences of their own bad choices… wait, no… NO CHOICES FOR YOU !!!!!!!! I AM THE ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGN, OBEY ME, DO AS I SAY !!!!!!!!!! These are POWER plays, now I know this is difficult, when conservatives get dirty, because of their FALSE sense of purity and nobility, they feel impelled to cart out their liberal scapegoats. I refuse to accept the blame. NO ONE made ANY of you do a damn thing. Take responsibility for your own behavior, don't you DARE pawn any of it on us. Unless you want to be called our personal puppets. Dancing to whatever twists and turns we bring.

        The sense of victimhood on the right is so bottomless it never ceases to amaze me.

      • Nani Tavares  •  Jul 1, 2018 at 12:11 am

        Ty, you just admitted that Liberals used the courts to push their agenda and Conservatives used the legislation. Ah, that is how it is supposed to be done. The courts were never supposed to legislate from the bench. Thank you for honestly admitting how wrong liberals have been.

      • Rizzo  •  Jul 1, 2018 at 8:36 am

        Amen Nani!

        Ty: “Liberal city wants to raise minimum wage? conservative state legislature and governors block them.”

        I don’t really think he even understands the difference between legislature and the judiciary. If he does, it’s apparent that he doesn’t care.
        He just knows that he wants his socialist-utopia, and that American citizens roundly reject it.

      • Ty  •  Jul 2, 2018 at 2:15 pm

        "Ty, you just admitted that Liberals used the courts to push their agenda and Conservatives used the legislation. "

        Of course I admitted that, I'm not as dishonest as so much of the right. The point I was also making though is that conservatives do the SAME damn thing.

        There is an asymmetry though because liberals usually want to change things away from the status quo, it's why I make the point to you all that if the world had no liberals, we'd still be living in mud huts with the conservatives because they are such frightened brittle temperamental people. More than that though, you actually did used to have the numbers on your side. Most people were against gay marriage, there was no NEED for conservatives to go to the courts to get what they wanted to get their will because they had the legislatures and public on their side. Liberals, to get what they wanted, had to go to courts.

        And if you are against using courts to dictate terms to a majority, then you must have been against the court overturning state laws banning interracial marriage in the loving vs Virginia case, the liberals WENT TO COURT to get their way. Ok, to be more generous, the non racists. And that is where people on the left fought for gay marriage.

        Someone mentioned the prop 8 ballot initiative and later using the courts to overturn that anti gay marriage constitutional amendment in California.

        That was a case where a bunch of social conservative factions sent money into California at the right time before public opinion had shifted too far (they could see the trends) to push a ballot through that would have tied california legislatures and voters for YEARS if not decades into the future. It was an act to DELAY the popular will of the people, it was a tactic to have the MINORITY view stretch out over time to block gays from getting married in California LONG AFTER public opinion changed.

        So YES, liberals went to the courts to try to get that struck down, and they did.

        But we are entering a different phase, a phase where on numerous social issues it's the CONSERVATIVES that are in the minority. MOST people do not want an absolute ban on abortion. MOST people are not opposed to gay marriage. So what must conservatives do? They can't RELY on popular will and the legislature anymore, they HAVE to rely on the courts to enforce their will.

        The LIE the right tells, is that they are consistent and pure creatures, NOT acting in their own self interest for their own desires, but only acting as guardians for the country.

        And I am telling EVERY SINGLE one of you who believes that tripe you are full of sh*t.

        Take the recent ruling that blocked California from requiring disclosures of access to abortion, or compelling those "crisis pregnancy" centers to alert women that came in of abortion as an option. The social conservatives, who set of those centers in the first place to shift attention and focus AWAY from abortion chaffed under those requirements.

        How dare California have requirements of speech! And so the conservatives on the court struck it down, but they specifically mentioned in their ruling that that SAME standard did not apply to an earlier supreme court ruling in Pennsylvania that COMPELLED the speech of doctors by REQUIRING them to tell women seeking abortions about fetal development and adoption services.

        Oh really?

        Compelling speech to alert people about abortion as an option? NOT allowed, but doing the same to alert people seeking abortions about adoption services? TOTALLY ok!

        Even the dumbest slivers among you ought to see this for the NAKED self interested we get what policy preferences WE want via court decision, DAMN any consistent standard. They just REJECTED their own standard used in ruling in this case for older cases that propped up conservative policy goals.

        Now Michael Medved, being the deceit filled talk radio host he is (and he is one of the LEAST deceit filled!) will NEVER explain this on air. It's a detail that is extremely inconvenient to the conservative narrative about how oppressed and victimized they are, about how the liberals use the courts to get what they want, but not them, oh no, NEVER them. And so Michael Lies. Using his favored tactic, the lies of omission.

      • Rizzo  •  Jul 2, 2018 at 3:19 pm

        If there were no Liberals, we would still be living in huts?
        That's a funny statement, coming from a leftist, who loves windmills, trains, and would like nothing more than to ban CO2 emissions from exisistance…. CO2, the bi-product of anything and everything that is MODERN AND DESIREABLE.
        You backwards-ass lunatics would have us living like cavemen, if you had your way.

      • Nani Tavares  •  Jul 2, 2018 at 4:52 pm

        Ty, you are trying to justify the use of the courts to circumvent the will of the people. You are just proving that for you and your group, the ends justify the means. The rather amusing part is that you have to depend on the moral superiority of the Right NOT to do what the Left has done for decades.

  6. Rizzo  •  Jul 3, 2018 at 3:35 pm

    Just like the Democrat Activist judges that gave us Plessy vs. Ferguson because black slaves were “property”, the modern democrat activist judges gave us Roe v Wade, because babies are a “private choice”.

    That’s the shit you get, when you ignore the Constitution in favor of outcome-based decisions.
    The left has a long history of such shit.

    • Rizzo  •  Jul 3, 2018 at 3:47 pm

      Sorry…. Dred Scott, not Plessy.

      Both, Democrat activist decisions.

      FOLLOW THE DAMN CONSTITUTION.

      • Ty  •  Jul 3, 2018 at 5:53 pm

        Democrats were pretty awful when they were populated by conservative southerners. Now the conservative southerners and their dysfunctions passed down through the ages are republicans.

        Not surprising that the descendants of people who were the most anti black are carrying the torch of people who are the most anti brown/other.

      • Nani Tavares  •  Jul 3, 2018 at 7:21 pm

        Ty, the BS that southern Democrats were conservatives and flipped have been debunked. You are either being lazy or repeating untruths. This does nothing to promote your credibility.

      • Rizzo  •  Jul 3, 2018 at 9:29 pm

        But that’s EXACTLY the point, they didn’t follow The Constitution. They were ACTIVIST Judges, and by definition NOT CONSERVATIVES.

        Democrat judicial activism has a long history of creating a less perfect union.

  7. Rizzo  •  Jul 4, 2018 at 6:52 am

    Democrats were pretty awful when they:
    Were Pro Slavery
    Pro Jim Crow laws
    Affirmed Dred Scott (slaves are property)
    Affirmed Plessy vs. Ferguson
    Affirmed Korematsu (internment of US citizens)
    Affirmed Roe v. Wade (legalized the killing of babies)
    Affirmed Obergefell v. Hodges (redefined marriage)

    As I said, Democrat Judicial activism has a long, ugly history of ignoring Constitutional law and focusing on outcome-based decisions to further their agenda of dismantling America.

  8. Rizzo  •  Jul 4, 2018 at 7:06 am

    Nani, Jim, kmeechan, NetworkDt., and the rest of you TRUE AMERICANS…

    Have a GREAT Independence Day.
    Celebrate FREEDOM!
    Be thankful for our American way of life!
    Stand like TRUE PATRIOTS, with your hand over your heart, while you honor America, during the playing of our National Anthem.
    Remember: keep up the good fight, because people like Ty, are actively trying to dismantle what is right and what is good.
    Lastly: Grill meat, drink beer, and enjoy a GREAT FIREWORKS display TONIGHT!!!

    Happy 4th. of July, my fellow PATRIOTS!

  9. Ty  •  Jul 4, 2018 at 6:05 pm

    It seems I am surrounded, surrounded by gaggles of the self described righteous who wish to maintain an less just world. I feel like Tyrael who chose to leave those kinds of fetid ranks:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0muXxwx6t0&t=36s

    No beer for me. I think I'll have a latte, and maybe some salmon.

  10. Armand  •  Jul 5, 2018 at 12:37 am

    This Ty character is both an idiot and a psycho.

    “Lastly: Grill meat, drink beer, and enjoy a GREAT FIREWORKS display TONIGHT!!!
    Happy 4th. of July, my fellow PATRIOTS!” I suppose. That “revolution” wasn’t anything very good; one group of aristocrats avoiding having to pay another group of aristocrats for Saving their arses from marquis de Montcalm and his Algonquian Inlaws
    Most of the former British Empire has lower taxes then the USA. I’ll take conservative Singapore and Hong Kong over New York anytime.

    • Rizzo  •  Jul 5, 2018 at 10:24 am

      Not very good?
      It only lead to the creation of the greatest, most prosperous, most consequential country in world history… in less than 200 years… an accomplishment that Switzerland and all of pathetic Europe could NEVER replicate.

  11. Armand  •  Jul 5, 2018 at 12:42 am

    “Affirmed Dred Scott (slaves are property)” Dredd Scott v. Sandford(sic) stated something more revolutionary(slaves were known to be property); free states didn’t exist!
    Slaves could be bought on the block as far north as Covington, KY or Hannibal, MO and transported to central Wisconsin and used as logging labor. It was a southern supported attack on the states ability to regulate slavery in their territory

    • Rizzo  •  Jul 5, 2018 at 9:31 am

      You are a historical moron.
      Slavery in the Wisconsin Territory, 1836, (some of which, including Fort Snelling, was part of the Louisiana Purchase) was prohibited by the United States Congress under the Missouri Compromise.
      Some might consider that to be the definition of a “FREE STATE”.

  12. Armand  •  Jul 5, 2018 at 11:09 am

    The Taney decision on dredd Scott v sandford(sic)
    Made slavery legal everywhere. You’re the Moron(like the rest of the religious nuts)

  13. Rizzo  •  Jul 5, 2018 at 3:28 pm

    The Illinois' Constitution of 1848 specifically banned slavery, section 16 of its Declaration of Rights specifying, "There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the State, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

    Wisconsin gained statehood on May 29, 1848. It was a free state from its foundation.

    Slavery has been forbidden in the state of Minnesota since that state's admission to the Union in 1858. The second section of the first Article of the state's constitution, drafted in 1857, provides that: There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the State otherwise there is the punishment of crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted

    The first legislation against slavery was the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which forbade slavery in the Northwest Territory, which included those parts of Minnesota that are east of the Mississippi.

    The Missouri Compromise is the title generally attached to the legislation passed by the 16th United States Congress on May 9, 1820. The measures provided for the admission of Maine as a free state along with Missouri as a slave state, thus maintaining the balance of power between North and South in the United States Senate. As part of the compromise, slavery was prohibited north of the 36°30′ parallel, excluding Missouri. President James Monroe signed the legislation on March 6, 1820.

    Enough? Can you understand the stupidity of the statement: "free states didn’t exist!"?

    CLEARLY, FREE STATES EXISTED before and after the Dred Scott decision.

  14. Rizzo  •  Jul 5, 2018 at 5:49 pm

    It’s a damn shame they couldn’t ban Adolf’s slavery to stupidity!

    Ty… this is a lesson for you too. Government can’t fix everything.

    • Rizzo  •  Jul 5, 2018 at 6:14 pm

      Just like those who killed 2 birds with 1 stone, I have managed to educate 2 morons with 1 fundamental fact.
      I am so damn efficient, it kills me!

  15. Armand  •  Jul 5, 2018 at 6:11 pm

    No, the Taney decision made slavery legal everywhere you illiterate.
    The Dredd Scott decision allowed slaves to be transported into “free territory” and remain in bondage. The Supreme Court decision nullified the “free states” anti slavery legislation
    Damn you’re stupid
    The Republican Party was created BECAUSE free states no longer existed. Slavery went national in 1857 with the Taney decision you stooge

  16. Rizzo  •  Jul 5, 2018 at 8:51 pm

    Enough? Can you understand the stupidity of the statement: "free states didn’t exist!"?

    CLEARLY, “FREE STATES” EXISTED before and after the Dred Scott decision.

    If “free states” didn’t exist, please explain how: Following the ruling, the Chaffees deeded the Scott family to Taylor Blow, who manumitted them on May 26, 1857. Scott worked as a porter in a St. Louis hotel, until he died from tuberculosis.

  17. Rizzo  •  Jul 5, 2018 at 9:09 pm

    Give me the dates, when each of the Northern Union states, gave up being “free states”, and became slave states.

  18. armand  •  Jul 6, 2018 at 12:48 am

    Missouri was a “slave state.” Scott was manumitted was under the Missouri slave code fool.
    “Free States”were forced to accept those bonded in slavery following the Taney decision.
    Wisconsin may not have allowed slave sales in 1857, but slaves could be legally brought into Wisconsin as property following Dredd Scott v Sandford(sic).
    The case prevented state law from depriving people of their slave property purchased in slave stated like Missouri. Wisconsin was not a “free state” if one could bring slaves from St Charles, MO to work a timber operation in LaCrosse or Dubuque.
    You’re an amazingly opinionated and stupid person rizzo

  19. Armand  •  Jul 6, 2018 at 12:50 am

    If “free states” didn’t exist, please explain how: Following the ruling, the Chaffees deeded the Scott family to Taylor Blow, who manumitted them on May 26, 1857. Scott worked as a porter in a St. Louis hotel, until he died from tuberculosis.”
    Rizzo, you do realize that Missouri was a slave state and had been since admittance to the union

  20. Rizzo  •  Jul 6, 2018 at 8:15 am

    "you do realize that Missouri was a slave state"
    Well of course… because according to you EVERY STATE was a slave state.
    Remember… "free states didn't exist".

    If "free states didn't exist", why did the south secede? According to you, Adolf, the US was one big slave country.
    On what date, did Indiana stop being a "free state", and become a slave state?

    • Rizzo  •  Jul 6, 2018 at 9:51 am

      Here is what we know about Indiana…
      By the time Indiana was granted statehood in 1816, the abolitionists were in firm control and slavery was banned in the constitution. In 1820, a Supreme Court of Indiana ruling in Polly v. Lasselle freed all the remaining slaves in the state. An additional Supreme Court ruling in 1821 freed indentured servant Mary Bateman Clark, helping to bring an end to indentured servitude.

      So, according to you, "free states didn't exist"… On what date did Indiana throw-in the towel, and say; "We Hoosiers, we are now officially a slave state. We reject our constitution, and now are hereby open for business in regards to slavery."?

      I can't seem to find the evidence.

      Adolf, you are super-smart… perhaps you can help.

  21. Armand  •  Jul 6, 2018 at 12:48 pm

    Indiana never threw in the towel; the Supreme Court ass slapped them with a wet towel.
    The Taney decision made it legal to import slaves into “free states” and the federal govt had to protect slave holders and their “Personal property” in the entirety of the USA
    So while Indiana had banned the selling, trafficking, holding of slaves, the federal government said Indiana could to nothing to infringe upon Indiana slave holders buying in Kentucky or Kentuckians bringing their slaves into Indiana.
    The Republican Party exists because free states were able to be legally slave filled by the 1857 decision

  22. Rizzo  •  Jul 6, 2018 at 1:23 pm

    Thanks Adolf, thank you for finally acknowledging the stupidity of your statement: “free states didn’t exist.”

  23. Rizzo  •  Jul 6, 2018 at 2:05 pm

    Show me map anywhere that lists these states as anything other than “FREE STATES”
    ▪ California
    ▪ Connecticit
    ▪ Illinois
    ▪ Indiana
    ▪ Iowa
    ▪ Maine
    ▪ Massachusetts
    ▪ Michigan
    ▪ New Hampshire
    ▪ New York
    ▪ New Jersey
    ▪ Ohio
    ▪ Pennsylvania
    ▪ Rhode Island
    ▪ Vermont
    ▪ Wisconsin

    https://www.cpsk12.org/cms/lib/MO01909752/Centricity/Domain/3513/Civil%20War%20Essay%20Charts.pdf

  24. Armand  •  Jul 6, 2018 at 5:52 pm

    After the Taney decision, slavery was legal everywhere; there were no “free states” where slavery was prohibited.
    Of course you also think African states don’t take the PISA because African states aren’t OECD states!?
    State law restricting slavery was overturned by Dredd Scott v Sandford(sic)
    Look I know you’re stupid; we all do. It was legal in 1858 to take slaves to California and work em. Some free state….it’s why the response in the “free states”/former free states was to create the Republican Party in Ripon, WI and get Lincoln elected in 1860! If only republicans were as motivated to abolish the capital gains tax and have federal licensing of medical health providers to facilitate cross border shopping, the republicans would be the party of the people again

  25. Rizzo  •  Jul 7, 2018 at 6:18 am

    "After the Taney decision, slavery was legal everywhere; there were no “free states” where slavery was prohibited."
    Actually, it was exactly the opposite. The Taney decision ONLY served to strengthen the resolve of the free states. As a result, the entire country was destined to be free, and slavery illegal everywhere… it's just that the south didn't know it.

  26. Armand  •  Jul 7, 2018 at 1:06 pm

    It’s a documented fact that you’re stupid. My point was that the dredd Scott case de facto erased “free states”. There is no question the decision mobilized states that had banned slave holding. The Taney decision did create radical free soil movements like the Republicans; but until SC secession, slavery was backed& protected by the feds in the territories and in all states.
    The slave power won the war in the courts @ lostit on the battlefield.

  27. Rizzo  •  Jul 7, 2018 at 6:45 pm

    Yeah, so how'd that Dred Scott thing workout for the South and their Unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling?
    1858
    – 15 Slave States
    1865
    – 0 Slave States

    The South lost the war, but slavery REALLY lost in the legislature… A little thing called The 13th. Amendment to the US Constitution.

    • Ty  •  Jul 8, 2018 at 12:54 am

      Now follow the trail Rizzo. The reason there were zero slave states is that the big bad federal government imposed its will on the states themselves, so all those southern conservatives had to shift to less explicit slave systems to maintain power and control, all the way to jim crow, jesus, that crap lasted into the 60s. And the southern conservatives were so enraged white identitarians like George Wallace lost out to less segregationist democrats they shifted over time with overtures from the southern strategy of Nixon. Now the white identitarians are almost exclusively voting republican.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM9JBMm2pkw

      The nativists that make up so much of the conservative base, are the descendants of that tradition. Hatred of living with and near the other was never confined to blacks, oh no, it extends to immigrants too. Not just illegal, legal as well. Keep denying it, but then explain why Tom Cottons immigration proposal CUTS legal immigration.

      This attitude that treats the "other" and the non christian right like parasites is not the entire republican party, Michael is not among this group, but he needs them to survive. The entire republican party needs these vile creatures to live.

  28. Rizzo  •  Jul 8, 2018 at 7:55 am

    Hilarious.
    Democrats will forever be tied to Slavery. They will forever be tied to Jim Crow laws.
    Democrats have always been the party of judicial activism…. outcome-based decisions.
    It is democrats today, that are trying to import modern day slavery, through illegal immigration.
    Democrats need a permanent underclass to survive. They need to create victims. It's pathetic!

    Regarding Tom Cotton… I will ask you again Ty, what is the purpose of US immigration policy?
    Is it to serve US needs, or is it to be the World's welfare destination?
    Leftists, like you Ty, advocate for chaos. I get it, you need to import voters… but you are harming US citizens, and you are destroying America.

  29. Rizzo  •  Jul 8, 2018 at 8:32 am

    "big bad federal government imposed its will on the states"
    This is NOT an example of "big bad federal government"
    This is a legitimate use of the federal government. There is no Constitutional or moral basis of any kind, for why slavery should have existed.
    Eliminating slavery from the US was a totally proper and legitimate use of federal government power.

  30. Rizzo  •  Jul 8, 2018 at 8:41 am

    You talk about Jim Crow laws lasting until the 60's.
    As recently as 2010, you leftist throwbacks were electing a former KKK grand wizard… Robert Byrd. The very same Robert Byrd, who lead a filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Then only, to be elected as the Democrat's Senate Majority Leader in 1989.

  31. Armand  •  Jul 8, 2018 at 9:32 am

    Is rizzies IQ finally rising? I thought the retard was a hopeless cause with his love of leftist, collectivist, bank criminal Israel, but there might be hope.
    Ty, the Democratic Party plant called the southern democrats conservatives! Ha!
    Ty, if the federal government were to federally license physicians and hospitals would they be “imposing their will on the states” like they do when they license pilots and aircraft and airlines? Wouldn’t you like to see the same competition in health care?
    How about ending predispute arbitration agreements for the bailed out banks? Ty answer these questions, you Democrats never can

    • Ty  •  Jul 8, 2018 at 1:30 pm

      southern democrats of the past were not fiscally conservative, they loved redistribution and mixed economies so long as the primary beneficiaries were white.

      This is a point I keep trying to drill into those cement heads of yours. If there was not a deep nativist animus towards non white people in conservative circles (whatever they called themselves politically), the country would vote for more people on the left economically. They supported unions, but wanted to keep blacks and other minorities out much of the time, the rents were for THEM, not others. The good people. That strain of thought parasite still lives on today on conservative nativists, with the ETERNAL mindset of a zero sum game, those other people TAKE AWAY from my well being, my prosperity, MY cultural enrichment in the social sphere.

      Look at this chart of the 2016 electorate.

      https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2017/06/16/16-left-vs-right-chart-1.nocrop.w710.h2147483647.png

      Note the difference in the Trump and Clinton voters. The Clinton voters, the people more on the left, were more reliably leftish on both economics and social attitudes. Nothing out of the ordinary. But the real info comes when looking at the Trump voting population.

      They identified as more in ling with the conservative social/IDENTITY spectrum. But look at the economic dimension. FAR more spread out than the liberals. That voter base is NOT a group and party of people who have bought into the kinds of randian fluff Rizzo and you parrot, or 90% of talk radio. No handouts, no redistribution? Minimal social services? LOOK AT THE DAMN CHART !!!!!!!! People who vote conservative are frequently aligned with the LEFT on economic policy, not all, not most, but I'd say at LEAST a third.

      So why don't those people vote for liberals, for people on the left? If the economic free for all arguments are not what they truly believe in, why continue to support those policies and republican candidates? For the same reason racist southern white democrats of the previous eras supported more social programs when they were focused on WHITES, and that support Dropped off an effing cliff with the population and their descendants who used to vote democrats (and shifted republican) once the social programs were more broadly distributed.

      Remember that point I have made repeatedly about conservatives wanting to personally inspect people to judge their worthiness? It turns out, when everyone benefits from social programs, people with a conservative white identitarian /evangelical christian supremacist mindset start to say to themselves…. SCREW social programs, WE WERE WRONG !!!!! NEVER MIND !!!! When most of the benefits were focused on US, the good people, it was fine, but you want it going to ANYONE? ALL people? I'd rather vote republican and diminish social programs across the board rather than have a more universal open society that helps ALL tribes and not just focuses more on my own.

      • Ty  •  Jul 8, 2018 at 1:44 pm

        Evidence I've posted in the past, but relevant here even though most of you will reject it due to both its source and its conclusions. But the information will still enter the bubble of the conservative mind, even if it chooses to ignore it.

        https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/8/16270040/trump-clinton-supporters-racist

        "They found that the image of a black man greatly impacted responses among Trump supporters. After they were exposed to the black racial cue, they were not only less supportive of housing assistance programs, but they also expressed higher levels of anger that some people receive government assistance and were more likely to say that individuals who receive assistance are to blame for their situation.

        All of these findings were heightened with greater favorability for Trump."

        "In contrast, favorability toward Clinton did not significantly change respondents’ views on any of these issues when primed with racial cues."

        Conservatives lie to themselves most of all when they try to pretend that their animus to social programs writ large is based purely off principle. They do not know how they are built as men and women, what drives them. They think the reason they are the way they are is out of pure nobility and reason and divine intervention. Not being one of them, it's easier for me to see the reality. Part of the reason conservatives are the way they are is because they are a more fearful and tribal people. They fear the other MORE than liberals. They just do. So when others are helped, in their warped little minds, they see it as resources taken away from them. Now a liberal is more likely to see help sent to minorities and white people having a hard time as the same, because to a liberal we are ALL in this together, and ALL PEOPLE sometimes need help. It does not turn on whether people are seen as part of the in group (worthy) or out group (intrinsically more suspicious and suspect) where assistance to those outsiders is almost seen as a sort of wasted expense since it does not circulate back into this more isolated tribe.

        Conservatism is a wonderful adaptation and attitude for hunter gatherer societies, or some small frontier town. It's TRASH when it comes to modernity and civilization, where unless you construct an actual ethno state, you are going to have people in the society who do not look like and think like you. And that attitude that we are going to LOWER our support for assistance based on what people look like (a short hand for whether people are part of our tribe) just makes society function less well.

        I wonder if that cultural preference is why conservatives cluster in rural and exurban and suburban while liberals flock to the cities and suburban. Or does living in more closed off isolated monocultures generate more conservative attitudes because of the nature of who is around you more often than not? I don't know.

      • Rizzo  •  Jul 8, 2018 at 8:50 pm

        Ty
        You can perform analysis to paralysis, but the results are the same.
        You lost… and your going to continue to lose.
        Turns out, Americans like when America is successful.
        Turns out, they like being employed.
        They like not being on food stamps.
        Trump, is just the tip of the iceberg of the success that is created from smaller government and increased freedom.

      • Rizzo  •  Jul 9, 2018 at 7:58 am

        Moron,
        In reality, we conservatives, don’t see “groups” of people at all. We don’t see white and black, and groups called minorities. It is YOU LEFTISTS, who have subdivided our country into groups.
        We see INDIVIDUALS. Every individual unique in their history, goals, challenges and talents.
        We see individuals as more than a skin-color.
        You damn, shallow, moron.

      • Rizzo  •  Jul 9, 2018 at 8:23 am

        You leftists are exactly ass-backwards.
        Maybe that's why you live in those shit-hole urban areas, like SanFrancisco?
        I don't know.

  32. Armand  •  Jul 8, 2018 at 9:35 am

    Rizzo, you have a long history of making inaccurate statements. Byrd was a piece of work, but he was never a grand wizard

  33. Rizzo  •  Jul 8, 2018 at 10:03 am

    I didn’t realize you were Robert Byrd’s personal biographer…. CORRECTION: Robert C. Byrd was a recruiter for the Klan while in his 20s and 30s, rising to the title of Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops of his local chapter.

    There…. are you happy Adolf?

  34. Rizzo  •  Jul 8, 2018 at 10:08 am

    Yeah, I made inaccurate statements like: “free states didn’t exist”.
    Referring to the following states as “slave states”
    ▪ California
    ▪ Connecticit
    ▪ Illinois
    ▪ Indiana
    ▪ Iowa
    ▪ Maine
    ▪ Massachusetts
    ▪ Michigan
    ▪ New Hampshire
    ▪ New York
    ▪ New Jersey
    ▪ Ohio
    ▪ Pennsylvania
    ▪ Rhode Island
    ▪ Vermont
    ▪ Wisconsin

    I’m still waiting for you to show me a map that backs your ridiculous claims.

  35. Armand  •  Jul 8, 2018 at 12:56 pm

    The federal government ruled in 1857 that slaves could be taken anywhere and remain in bondage. State law restricting slave Holding was ruled unconstitutional.
    I won’t waste my fingers typing your other nonsense(Israel ranking lower then Switzerland on an economist magazine bleasphemy law ranking, African states not taking PISA from OECD “African states are not members of OECD, moron” you do politely stated….just reminders)

  36. Armand  •  Jul 8, 2018 at 12:58 pm

    “Are you happy Adolf” seeing that I’m a right wing SVP member I’m used to be called a “nazi,” the only good thing about being called a “nazi” is that no one has ever had a sexual fantasy of being ravished by someone dressed as a left wing liberal.
    Enough with the Adolfo stuff.
    Yeah, you actually corrected yourself for being wrong(which is a regular occurrence).

  37. Armand  •  Jul 8, 2018 at 1:05 pm

    I don’t need to “show” you “a map”of the sectional nature of the us pre civil war; I’ll let this school synopsis educate your infantile brain(no doubt contaminated by middle eastern sandmonkey Semitic religion). The court ruled slave holding could not be restricted by state law.
    http://www.phschool.com/curriculum_support/interactive_constitution/scc/scc09.htm

  38. Rizzo  •  Jul 8, 2018 at 8:42 pm

    "I don’t need to “show” you “a map”of the sectional nature of the us pre civil war"
    – No, actually you do NEED to.
    Because if you want to make the claim that The Dred Scott ruling was a backdoor way to undermine the FREE STATES. I could accept that.
    But, that's not what you said. You said, "Free States didn't exist". CLEARLY, they did.
    So much so, that they won The Civil War, passed The 13th. Amendment, and abolished slavery EVERYWHERE in the US.
    Show me where, and how The Dred Scott had any even a remotely similar impact on the FREE STATES.
    And, if you want me to stop calling you Adolf, then stop your blind hatred of Jews… got it Chumley?

  39. Rizzo  •  Jul 9, 2018 at 8:52 am

    According to Taney, African Americans, be they slave or free, were not citizens. As a slave, moreover, Scott was property and had no right to bring suit in federal courts. "In regard to the issue of Scott's becoming free when he moved to the free State of Illinois," Taney wrote, "the laws of the State in which the petitioner was currently resident, namely the slave State of Missouri, should apply."

    The laws of the state should apply.
    Missouri was a slave state, and as such, their slave laws should apply.
    Indiana was a FREE STATE, and as such, their FREE STATE laws should apply.

    Got it, Adolf?

  40. Herbert Morrison  •  Jul 9, 2018 at 2:09 pm

    Armand is like the Hindenberg Disaster.

    They've dropped ropes out of the nose of the ship, and they've been taken a hold of down on the field by a number of men. It's starting to rain again; it's—the rain has slacked up a little bit. The back motors of the ship are just holding it just, just enough to keep it from — It burst into flames!
    It's fire—and it's crashing! It's crashing terrible! Oh, my, get out of the way, please! It's burning and bursting into flames, and the—and it's falling on the mooring-mast and all the folks agree that this is terrible, this is one of the worst catastrophes in the world. [Indecipherable word(s)] It's–it's–it's the flames, [indecipherable, possibly the word "climbing"] oh, four- or five-hundred feet into the sky and it … it's a terrific crash, ladies and gentlemen. It's smoke, and it's flames now … and the frame is crashing to the ground, not quite to the mooring-mast.

    Oh, THE HUMANITY!

    This is the WORST THING I'VE EVER WITNESSED!

  41. Armand  •  Jul 9, 2018 at 3:55 pm

    No, you don’t have it moron who thinks Africans don’t take the PISA.
    If one bought slaves in Louisville, had a bill of sale, then Indiana laws do not apply. The spaces would be Kentucky “residents” you moron, legally transportable and leasable in MI, OH, WI, RI, And your beloved Indiana. Dude, how stupid are you?

    • Rizzo  •  Jul 9, 2018 at 4:16 pm

      Taney: “The laws of the states should apply”
      Somebody help Adolf…
      Oh, THE HUMANITY!
      This is the WORST THING I'VE EVER WITNESSED!

      LOL!!!

  42. Armand  •  Jul 9, 2018 at 4:14 pm

    Read northern newspapers like then Waukesha freeman, from 1857 they not you knew what had happened
    “Now every negro born in Louisiana bondage can be floated up The Mississippi and Illinois and made to till the fields in our dear lake country”
    No free states, only federally enforced slavery.
    The slavers won in the courts, lost in the battlefield; like moron rizzo, born losers unable to even know when they’re tasting some bit of success

  43. Rizzo  •  Jul 9, 2018 at 4:36 pm

    Read your own damn link.
    Taney: “The laws of the states should apply”

    Oh the humanity.

  44. Rizzo  •  Jul 9, 2018 at 4:38 pm

    Did Taney know what had happened?

    Taney: “The laws of the states should apply”.

    Oh the humanity.

  45. Armand  •  Jul 9, 2018 at 4:47 pm

    “The laws of the states should apply” but not in determining ownership or transport. Listen moron. Taney didn’t rule that Wisconsin had to legalize the sale of slaves, but he ruled that they couldn’t t regulate or set free slaves transported in.
    AgaIn for your low IQ. There were no states free from slavery after 1857 until the 13 amendment.
    One could buy slaves in Covington, KY and barge the lot of em to Pittsburgh and PA could t do anything to prevent you from operating your human holdings. PA had been “enslaved” by Screwball Tandy’s decision.
    Damn you’re stupid

  46. Armand  •  Jul 9, 2018 at 4:51 pm

    So why wasn’t dredd Scott free by being in free soil IL? Because his bill of sale was from Missouri; making him a “Missouri resident”.
    Thank goodness the free spoilers weren’t as stupid as Russo the Abrahamic low IQ dim wit(a character so egomaniacal and dense he’d be a character in a mark Twain book if he had so much as a slice of humor about him)

    • Rizzo  •  Jul 9, 2018 at 6:07 pm

      He brought the case forward, after the fact, not while he was living in “free soil”. Interesting name, since you claim no such thing existed.
      He sued while living in slave-state Missouri…. as you so keenly notes earlier.

  47. Armand  •  Jul 9, 2018 at 7:08 pm

    Dress Scott could have sued from Peoria IL
    And still lost.
    Taney and the pro slavery section on the court would have ruled the same
    In 1857 slavery went national. What you’re arguing is nonsense. Every republican in America who was literate accurately gauged the situation; slaveholding was legal everywhere
    It’s only moron republicans of the21st century like yourself who don’t know this

    • Rizzo  •  Jul 9, 2018 at 7:27 pm

      Taney: “The laws of the states should apply”

      And, if “free states didn’t exist” after the Dred Scott ruling, then I guess the North seceded from this Unconstitutional country, with this rogue court-ruling, and this over-reaching Federal Government.

      Is that what happened?
      Or
      The Underground Railroad was formed and reached its height between 1850 and 1860. One estimate suggests that by 1850, 100,000 slaves had escaped via the "Railroad".

      Weird?!?!

  48. Armand  •  Jul 10, 2018 at 7:48 am

    No, sc seceded following the election of Abraham Lincoln. The south feared the republicans were an excestential threat to their slave holding culture and decided to completely bug out(bad decision).
    Once fort Sumter was attacked, the federal government had to carry out suppressing the rebellion. Other states left and off it went.
    The North were the good guys

  49. Rizzo  •  Jul 10, 2018 at 1:56 pm

    “The North were the good guys”

    I’m glad you clarified.
    There’s hope for you yet, Adolf!

  50. Armand  •  Jul 10, 2018 at 2:06 pm

    Sadly with your literacy and IQ there’s none for yoy

    • Rizzo  •  Jul 11, 2018 at 10:42 pm

      You've been telling me you're a genius since you were seventeen
      In all the time I've known you I still don't know what you mean
      The weekend at the college didn't turn out like you planned
      The things that pass for knowledge I can't understand

  51. Moderatme  •  Jul 11, 2018 at 11:13 am

    It disturbs me the discussions that are in place here. Success in this country depends on cooperation, understanding, working to and for the good of all. Example, the Wild Boar soccer team rescue. One goal, many options and opinions. Commit to the road ahead then everyone moves forward with a single focus. We all share a group of common goals which is a much bigger list than our differences. Unfortunately you are using these differences as a way to divided. This is a fundamental flaw driven be ego and not what is in the best interests of all. Not all Dems are libs, just like not all Reb are conservitive. Stop the division and start talking union. That will help.

Tell Us What You Think

All fields required. The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this website you agree to accept our Terms of Use.

Medhead

Listen Commercial FREE  |  On-Demand
Login Join
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertise with us Advertisement

Follow Michael

The Michael Medved Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Listen to the show on your amazon echo devices
Advertisement
Advertisement
Michael Medved's History Store Also available on TuneIn
Advertisement