Free the states

[Ed W]

Free The States is running an anti-abortion ad in rapid rotation. It features Randy Brogdon, former state senator and committed right wing ideologue. The organization seems to be joined at the hip to gubernatorial hopeful Dan Fisher.

But I'm not posting this to argue about abortion. Instead, I offer this from their FB page:

"State sovereignty, the idea that States can self-govern, will become a real vs. theoretical idea when Oklahoma abolishes and criminalizes abortion.

Remember, there is NOTHING that requires Oklahoma to submit to a Supreme Court "opinion." We just do because we've been brainwashed into believing their "opinions" are the "law of the land." What rubbish. Sadly, almost all of the candidates in the upcoming election are continuing this brainwashing by insisting the Courts "opinion" must be bowed to.

For the Christian community residing in Oklahoma, your FIRST allegiance is to God, then your State where you have the power to change things. Not nine politically connected lawyers (that's all Supreme Court Justices are by the way) in black robes. They are not God.

We should stop listening to candidates who claim we must submit to these black robed politically connected lawyers. Their "opinion" will lead to 20 babies being murdered in OKC and Tulsa...today."

It seems we had another instance of states ignoring the federal government in the late unpleasantness of 1860-1865, with the outcome well established that the federal government and it's courts as the supreme law of the land. Perhaps Brogdon didn't get the memo.

[Conan71]

Anything to do with Randy Brogdon is a #shitsandwich.

Look, I'm not an abortion proponent by any means but there is so much cra-cra wrapped up in that, it almost makes me feel proud to say: "Former Oklahoman".  I try never to sound like a bitter ex-pat but  the ideology that passes for ideal governance in Oklahoma these days is just embarrassing. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

But I'm not posting this to argue about abortion. Instead, I offer this from their FB page:

"State sovereignty, the idea that States can self-govern, will become a real vs. theoretical idea when Oklahoma abolishes and criminalizes abortion.

Remember, there is NOTHING that requires Oklahoma to submit to a Supreme Court "opinion." We just do because we've been brainwashed into believing their "opinions" are the "law of the land." What rubbish. Sadly, almost all of the candidates in the upcoming election are continuing this brainwashing by insisting the Courts "opinion" must be bowed to.

Just shows how totally ignorant, dishonest, and morally corrupt, the believers of those people are - by definition, Supreme Court opinions ARE the supreme law of the land - in combination with acts of Congress, treaties with foreign countries, and the US Constitution.  


This is how we get people going on so stupidly about how "international law", in the form of treaties we are party to, somehow doesn't count.  Since they are willfully ignorant, I am sure none have actually read the document(s).... the Constitution.   You just can't fix stupid...

[erfalf]

Not advocating one way or another, all though I have an opinion on the matter.

Supreme Court decisions are the law of the land, however opinions have been known to change from time to time. Prevailing sentiment and such are pretty powerful, just see several decisions regarding race relations. While you may not agree with them, they aren't necessarily just howling at the moon. While it is an extremely remote chance, there is still a chance things could change.

And it's a private group that is advocating a position. Are they not allowed?

[patric]

Not advocating one way or another, all though I have an opinion on the matter.

Supreme Court decisions are the law of the land, however opinions have been known to change from time to time. Prevailing sentiment and such are pretty powerful, just see several decisions regarding race relations. While you may not agree with them, they aren't necessarily just howling at the moon. While it is an extremely remote chance, there is still a chance things could change.

And it's a private group that is advocating a position. Are they not allowed?

Perhaps I missed the part where Ed said their opinion wasnt allowed.

[swake]

Not advocating one way or another, all though I have an opinion on the matter.

Supreme Court decisions are the law of the land, however opinions have been known to change from time to time. Prevailing sentiment and such are pretty powerful, just see several decisions regarding race relations. While you may not agree with them, they aren't necessarily just howling at the moon. While it is an extremely remote chance, there is still a chance things could change.

And it's a private group that is advocating a position. Are they not allowed?

Sure they are allowed. Did someone say they weren't?

Just as others are allowed to criticize this private group for their moon bat positions.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Not advocating one way or another, all though I have an opinion on the matter.

Supreme Court decisions are the law of the land, however opinions have been known to change from time to time. Prevailing sentiment and such are pretty powerful, just see several decisions regarding race relations. While you may not agree with them, they aren't necessarily just howling at the moon. While it is an extremely remote chance, there is still a chance things could change.

And it's a private group that is advocating a position. Are they not allowed?

They do change...just like laws change.  Our entire system is in continuous flux with ongoing ebb and flow.  

That is one of the biggest reasons the BatSh$t Crazies (BSC's) who talk about being "originalist" are so wacked out.  There is no such thing as "originalism" - the Constitution started changing the instant it was ratified and courts started operating.  (See Thomas, Gorsuch, Bork under BSC...)   Just a fantasy pipe dream and desire to return to something that never really existed.  Like the "good ole days" fantasy....


Oh,...almost forgot...yeah, they do have the right to their opinion and I strongly encourage them to express it.  And I would fight along side them to keep that right!   But I bet they would not do the same...   As they have proven repeatedly by the stupid laws they pass in this state, in spite of the fact they know they are illegal and will not stand.


And I reserve the right to go after them in exactly the same manner they are trying to abridge MY rights.

[Conan71]

Not advocating one way or another, all though I have an opinion on the matter.

Supreme Court decisions are the law of the land, however opinions have been known to change from time to time. Prevailing sentiment and such are pretty powerful, just see several decisions regarding race relations. While you may not agree with them, they aren't necessarily just howling at the moon. While it is an extremely remote chance, there is still a chance things could change.

And it's a private group that is advocating a position. Are they not allowed?

Private group or well-funded lobbying organization and for what purpose?

I think that merits a closer examination, much like the farm bill which was sourced and funded by a national initiative, not a grass roots ag group of struggling small farmers as we were led to beleive.  Remember that one? The basic intent was to disregard what large producers were pulling out of natural resources and what they were, more importantly, dumping back into them.