Connect with us

News

SAY WHAT!? Neil Gorsuch Sides With Liberal Justices On ‘Gun Violence’ Law (Details)

DUUUUDEE!! What’s the deal!?

John Salvatore

Published

on

Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts all dissented.

Notice a name missing from that list? It’s Neil Gorsuch.

President Trump’s first Supreme Court nomination, the entire reason many people voted for Trump in 2016, just sided with the liberal minority on the bench.

Trending: BLM Goes Into Target, Demands the Store Stop Calling Police On Black Shoplifters (Videos)

Check this out…

take our poll - story continues below

Trump or Biden, who will win?

  • Why wait until November 3? Show all of America who you're voting for in 2020  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

From The Hill:

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 5-4 that a federal law allowing for gun convictions relating to “a crime of violence” was too vague.

The case involved a pair of men who were convicted on several felony robbery charges, but were also convicted under another federal statute that required significant mandatory minimum sentences for a “crime of violence.”

The men in question — Maurice Davis and Andre Glover — argued that the federal law was too vague. The justices on Monday were split in their decision, but ultimately sided with the men.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Students at a Georgia college want Justice Thomas’ name removed from a building.

But there’s a problem.

They have no flippin’ clue why!

WATCH:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was asked what he’d do if a Supreme Court seat was up for grabs in 2020, a presidential election year.

Of course, he was asked this question because the GOP-controlled Senate refused in 2016 to confirm Obama’s pick, Merrick Garland, saying the new president should get to pick.

It was a tactic that worked.

Check out Cocaine Mitch answer the reporter, as he keeps a big smirk on his face the entire time…

WATCH:

More context:

It’s so sloppy that this is being reported as a reversal. It really isn’t. It’s exactly what McConnell said all along.

In 2016, Sen. McConnell argued that with a divided government (Dem White House, GOP Senate), the voters should decide who gets to appoint J. Scalia’s replacement.

That first condition does not apply. We don’t have a divide WH/Senate anymore.

As most conservatives are well aware, Obamacare was unconstitutional from the start considering it originated in the Senate.

Now, an appeals court has ruled in the Trump administration’s favor on a major issue.

What this means is the Supreme Court may wind up ruling on the Redistribution of Wealth Act’s Affordable Care Act’s legality before the 2020 presidential election.

In other words, it’s kind of a big deal.

Save conservative media!

News

Democrat Senators Refuse To Comment On Removal Of George Washington Statues

Published

on

The Daily Caller recently reached out to the offices of every single Democratic senator to find out what they thought of the notion of tearing down George Washington statues, a move that would be consistent with their support of the removal of other works of art and monuments that Black Lives Matter and other radical leftists claim offend someone. Every single one of them refused to comment. That’s telling, isn’t it? Check out more of the details from The Washington Examiner: One senator, Tammy Duckworth from Illinois, recently said she supports a conversation on removing such statues. “He should be talking about what we’re going to do to overcome this pandemic,” Duckworth said of President Trump during a CNN interview earlier in July. “What are we going to do to push Russia back? Instead, he had no time for that. He spent all his time talking about dead traitors.” She added during the interview, “I think we should listen to the argument there. But remember that the president at Mount Rushmore was standing on ground that was stolen from Native Americans who had actually been given that land during a treaty.” What this really comes down to is the fact the left wants to sanitize the history of the United States and supplant the truth with their own revisionist version of events in order to help support their own progressive principles to further brainwash future generations of young people into being loyal to the state and the values it espouses. The reality is, we need to leave these monuments alone, even if they are offensive. Why? Because, for starters, people are more complex than all evil and all good. At least most people. These monuments are a testament to the history of our nation. They remind us of who we…

Continue Reading

News

Failed Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton Says ‘We Must Be Ready’ For Possibility Trump Will Refuse To Leave Office

Published

on

Twice failed Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continues to demonstrate that she’s sour over the major defeat she suffered at the hands of Donald Trump by spouting off all sorts of nonsense conspiracy theories about the president not leaving office if he loses the election this year. Obviously, this is nothing more than an attempt to fear monger and try making liberals shake in their boots and show up en masse to defeat the president in November. The more scared the left keeps people, the more they will refuse to see the truth behind what is happening in our country, believing that the only way to stay safe from the big, bad president is through liberal policies. Clinton conducted an interview with Trevor Noah from The Daily Show where she discussed mail-in ballots and potential voter suppression. Here’s more detail from The Washington Examiner: Noah asked Clinton if there was a scenario she could envision in which the president loses the election but argues that a couple instances of voter fraud are enough to invalidate of the election results. “Well, I think it is a fair point to raise as to whether or not, if he loses, he’s going to go quietly or not. And we have to be ready for that. But there have been so many academic studies and other analyses, which point out that it’s just an inaccurate, fraudulent claim,” she said in reference to Republican claims about the potential for widespread voter fraud via mail-in ballots. Voting by mail, a longstanding practice, has been fiercely debated as more election officials have expanded access to absentee voting during the coronavirus pandemic. https://youtu.be/jwhCtkssg00 “Look, I want a fair election. If people get to vote and they, for whatever reason, vote for Donald Trump,…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

 
Send this to a friend