One could successfully argue that SCOTUS issued an unconstitutional decision if it contradicts the clear language of the Constitution. For example, if a decision said that the "due process clause" created buttsex rights for men and the government shall not infringe, I would say that is a fabrication from thin air, not in the text, and is nowhere in the actual Constitution. Therefore the decision is unconstitutional (and for the record, Lawrence is a classic fag name).
In contrast, EBT Raggedy Ann can't point to any language in the actual text of the Constitution to support her statement. The recent SCOTUS decision is contrary to what exactly? Just bad precedent and my feelings is her only answer.
One could successfully argue that SCOTUS issued an unconstitutional decision if it contradicts the clear language of the Constitution. For example, if a decision said that the "due process clause" created buttsex rights for men and the government shall not infringe, I would say that is a fabrication from thin air, not in the text, and is nowhere in the actual Constitution. Therefore the decision is unconstitutional (and for the record, Lawrence is a classic fag name).
In contrast, EBT Raggedy Ann can't point to any language in the actual text of the Constitution to support her statement. The recent SCOTUS decision is contrary to what exactly? Just bad precedent and my feelings is her only answer.
(post is archived)