GOP's Gohmert introduces resolution that would ban the Democratic Party

He may just do that.

Actually, I don’t think one can predict what is coming down the pipe for the Supreme Court, especially in the days when abortion was left up to the states but there are certainly events in our country’s history that could be looked at.

Didn’t this guy just catch COVID after going around without a mask?

And it gets worse.

He blames a mask for the coronavirus but he refused to wear a mask?


Because of the Democratic Party rule in cities like Minneapolis (Democratic Mayor, Governor, District Attorney, Attorney General, City Council…), where racial oppression is alleged to exist, I presume that kneeling athletes are protesting the apparent incompetence of the Democratic Party in their treatment of African-Americans.

1 Like

Colin Kaepernick never played for the Minnesota Vikings.

1 Like

Colin Kappernack was benched in 2015. Only after being benched did Kaparnneck start to try to draw attention to himself by kneeling disrespectfully.

1 Like

Whether his actions are disrepectful or not is an issue for another thread. When Mr. Kaepernick first protested seems far too 'ad hominem for me to comment on.

1 Like

Proof that the United States is the greatest country for minorities to live in: millions of legal and illegal immigrants try to get into the United States each year. More than any other country, they choose to come to the United States.
And, we’re the most generous country in the world in accepting immigrants: 1 million per year, which is far more than 2nd place Germany at 300,000.
So, I’m not exactly sure what the point of the kneeling is. Objecting that they have it so good here in America? Objecting to the fact that America is the most giving nation in the world?


Well, until that is proof there is no need for improvement in the US, we should continue to try to change things, not rest on our laurels.

Mr. Kaepernick’s protest had to do with police brutality against minorities.

1 Like

The evidence does not support the charge that biased police are systematically killing Black Americans in fatal shootings.
Much of modern policing is driven by crime data and community demands for help. The African American community tends to be policed more heavily, because that is where people are disproportionately hurt by violent street crime. In New York City in 2018, 73% of shooting victims were Black, though Black residents comprise only 24% of the city’s population.
Nationally, African Americans between the ages of 10 and 34 die from homicide at 13 times the rate of white Americans, according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Justice Department.

Community requests also determine police deployment, and the most urgent requests often come from law-abiding residents of high-crime neighborhoods.

As of the June 22 update, the Washington Post’s database of fatal police shootings showed 14 unarmed Black victims and 25 unarmed white victims in 2019.
There are about 7,300 Black homicide victims a year. The 14 unarmed victims in fatal police shootings would comprise only 0.2% of that total.

Ideally, officers would never take anyone’s life in the course of their duties. But given the number of arrests they make each year (around 10 million) and the number of deadly-weapons attacks on officers (an average of 27 per day in just two-thirds of the nation’s police departments, according to a 2014 analysis), it is not clear that these 1,000 civilian shooting deaths suggest that law enforcement is out of control.

Reducing police resources will ultimately result in poorer service to the law-abiding residents of high-crime areas. Officers without back-up will be more stressed and at higher risk of poor judgment. Response times will increase. Cash-starved agencies will train less, not more, while lower pay scales will result in less qualified recruits.

A reduced police presence in minority neighborhoods will claim more Black lives. When officers back off of proactive policing under accusations of racism, violence shoots up. That was the case in cities recently examined by Harvard economists. After investigations opened up into a media-grabbing instance of police use of deadly force in Baltimore, Chicago, Cincinnati, Ferguson, Missouri, and Riverside, California, there were almost 900 excess homicides and almost 34,000 excess felonies, their study found.

Good one. And I suppose the “impeachment” and other wasteful hearings by the Democrats was “time well spent.”

The first George Bush hit a home run with Clarence Thomas. The second Bush picked outstanding constitutionalist Samuel Alito. (Rehnquist and Scalia were also Republican appointees.) Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are substantially better than the 5 leftist Judges.

All 4 Democrat appointees are extreme leftists, making their own laws from the bench.

In other words, with a Democrat President, we KNOW that we’ll get leftist Judges. With a Republican President, there’s a good chance (though very far from 100%) we’ll get a Judge who views his or her job as interpreting the law.

1 Like

Actually, they were forced to take that action because Trump does not understand conflict of interest. But let’s not go over that subject again.

Alito is not outstanding. He is the weakest of the recent picks. Kagan and Sotomayor are stellar.

Perhaps you have your Presidential candidates mixed up:

Joe Biden was so proud of his role in the prosecutor’s removal from investigating the company paying his son $50,000 per month merely to serve on its board that he actually bragged about it in a 2018 speech at an event for the publication Foreign Affairs. In this speech, Biden boasts his threat to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loans from Ukraine if they did not agree to fire the prosecutor who happened to be investigating the company giving his son a cushy sinecure.
The prosecutor was fired, and the investigation was dropped six months later.

I appreciate your opinionated contributions to the forum, but I can’t let this one go.
I’ll merely point out the recent decisions of the past couple months:

  • May a state require that all doctors who perform abortions have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles?
    No, the court (including Sotomayor and Kagan) said in a 5-4 ruling in June Medical Services vs. Russo.

  • May a state exclude church schools from a state-sponsored tuition aid program that supports students in other private schools, or does that exclusion amount to unconstitutional discrimination against religion? Both Sotomayor and Kagan said “no”.

  • Are church-run schools entitled to a religious exemption from federal anti-discrimination laws when it comes to hiring and firing teachers ? Shockingly, Sotomayor said “no”.

  • May the Trump administration exempt employers who cite religious or moral objections from part of the Affordable Care Act that requires providing no-cost contraceptives to employees (in Little Sisters of the Poor vs. Pennsylvania)?(
    Perhaps, it should not be shocking that Sotomayor said “no”.



You truncate the issues and holdings in many of the cases. What is your point; that you didn’t like the decisions? How is what you like or dislike relevant?

The bigger question is if the holdings were correct under the Constitution. Now, if we were to examine that issue, we would have something to discuss.

For one thing, the “abortion distortion”, where abortion clinics are, somehow, exempt from the standards of hospitals. Same with all abortion-related laws and the attacks on faithful Christians. The inconsistencies and double-standards.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit